US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

[Rosal76]

does breaking the law even matter any more?

Laws/rules don't apply to Trump and (some) his supporters. Remember that quote Trump said back in, I think, 2016. "President Trump famously said during his campaign that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it". His lawyer says: "In court Wednesday, his lawyers argued that legally, he really could -- and no one could do a thing about it". They even had a reporter ask a bunch of Trump supporters if they would still support Trump if he did indeed shoot someone and they said, yes.

Same thing for (some) his supporters. A lot of supporters say that Nancy Pelosi was disrespectful for tearing up Trump's State of the Union speech. However, they are totally O.K. with Trump calling third world countries, shit world countries and calling celebrity, Rosie O'Donnel, fat.

Die hard Trump supporters are very, very hard to understand. I have friends who are die hard Trump supporters and they have a lot of hate in their hearts. And what's weird is that the Trump supporters (friends) who go to Church are like, "Love everyone no matter who they are". I'm like, "you mean, whoever is wearing a "Make America Great again" cap. LOL.

 

[sleewell]

its really not that hard to understand at all. the party is all important and can do no wrong. the party is trump. kiss the ring and you are ok, say one thing against them and you are finished. you are fully expected to embrace every position, even if its opposite to what they used to believe. you are expected to give trump every pass and hold anyone from the other party accountable for those same actions. it's a cult.

if anyone hasnt read 1984 you really should at this point.

 

[G_3_3_k_]

its really not that hard to understand at all. the party is all important and can do no wrong. the party is trump. kiss the ring and you are ok, say one thing against them and you are finished. you are fully expected to embrace every position, even if its opposite to what they used to believe. you are expected to give trump every pass and hold anyone from the other party accountable for those same actions. it's a cult.

if anyone hasnt read 1984 you really should at this point.

Most of his supporters at this point I think would see no problems with seeing Emperor Trump happen.

Democracy and Freedom will die silently while the masses enraptured in the joys of their party winning willingly hand it all over.

 

[wedge_destroyer]

I never said, nor implied illegality.

Fair, however I interpreted the statement as to it feeling "North Korea-y", to imply despotic action that abides no rule of law save that which comes from a Kim's mouth, hence why I returned to legality. Because if it is in a legal framework, its not as easy to make depotic comparisons.
If I am incorrect in the meaning of the phrase that i inferred please extrapolate.

 

[wedge_destroyer]

Well that’s not quite how it works. He could instruct Amy Command to have him referred for Court Martial. There’s several kinds and the nature of his crime would determine the type of court martial. There would need to be probable cause of a crime for it to proceed, of which there is likely none, since you know, he didn’t commit a crime (nor was he accused of one).

He is not serving in a political position per se. He is a military liaison and advisor to the NSC, advising a political appointee (NSA) on military matters. He may be dismissed from that role without cause, but he reverts back to his prior unit.

Any suggestion that Vindman, or Bill Taylor, are anything other than American Heroes is disgusting... and I’ll let Chaos speak for me:

Thank you for making the process a bit clearer, I was simply referring to he could have the process begun via a lawful order, which as such would have to shake down the chain. Which its highly unlikely he would (or his advisors would let him) bother with it anyways.
Being in their rank and the positions they were in, they have a nice desk waiting for them somewhere, I'm sure.

Also I did not mean to imply they were anything, just that I could see how the left and right, would try to frame it. If Trump was foolish enough to bother with it. He has bigger fish to fry I would imagine.

 

[bostjan]

The only scenario where I think this becomes a concern, is if Trump is either so cocky, or so dismissive of evidence to the contrary, or - really - both, that he ignores perfectly clear evidence that he's not expected to win, loses, and then freaks the fuck out and tries to hold onto power.

It's possible, and it's a really, really scary scenario to think through, because I'm not sure what happens here. Military coup, probably...? And then hope they have the decency to turn over the government to the rightful winner after arresting Trump?

I mean, my first instinct for a year or so was to shrug and say "but he's not that bad," but IDK anymore.

You're a lot more qualified to address his economic policies than I am, but I just see a bunch of stuff that either plays the long game ineffectively or gets a quick boost at the cost of less longterm stability.

From the standpoint of principle, Trump is a mess. That call with Ukraine was shady as it could be, but Republicans either say it's "perfect," or say something like "meh, not good but whaddabout democrats...". This ongoing purge of political enemies from the excutive branch is also shady, but Trump's supporters are calling for much worse.

Pollsters are all saying that either Buttigieg or Sanders or Biden are going to beat Trump, pretty much for sure. But I bet that they won't. The Democrats seem primed to stumble all the way to November, and Trump's supporters are all galvanized as ever to make sure to get out and vote. If Buttigieg runs, he probably won't even win his own home state. People are afraid of Sanders's policies (what's the matter, Sanders, chicken?). Biden is talking like he doesn't want people to vote for him. Super likely right now, Trump will win Florida, win Indiana, and beat any of those three in OH, and two in PA, plus carry all of the normally red states. Even if he loses the popular vote by 7 million, he'll get the right swing states to clinch the electoral college, even if by a slim margain. So a Civil War II is not likely.

The key will be to keep enough Democrats in Congress to stop the Republicans from repealing the 22nd Amendment.

 

[USMarine75]

Nancy ripping up the State of the Union speech is 100% illegal.

Haha no.

 

[narad]

@Rosal76 Also, I'd be willing to support anybody who shoots somebody, based on the context of the shooting. If it's in self defense or in the defense of children or something like that? Hell yea. If it's murder and was not done in self defense? Nah, no more support.

The Tinder profile version of this post is "I like having fun, traveling, and food!"

 

[Vyn]

Nancy ripping up the State of the Union speech is 100% illegal.

Double edged sword. People of power can do as they please, no matter their political association. Both the right and left have plenty of people who get away with things.

I didn't realize that people getting away with crimes was new in 2020

Your argument would hold up if ripping up the the speech was illegal - it's not.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Fair, however I interpreted the statement as to it feeling "North Korea-y", to imply despotic action that abides no rule of law save that which comes from a Kim's mouth, hence why I returned to legality. Because if it is in a legal framework, its not as easy to make depotic comparisons.
If I am incorrect in the meaning of the phrase that i inferred please extrapolate.

I was mainly referring to the familial guilt by association and inflicting punishment as such, which is something of a hallmark of the Kim Regimes.

Outside of the flagrant disregard of established whistle blower protections for those who acting in good faith and who go through the proper channels, which is what happened in this particular case.

It's also not a great look putting petty personal vendettas ahead of national security.

If Trump did do anything against the rule of law, who would hold him accountable? The Senate has shown they don't care, and Barr definitely isn't doing anything.

Nancy ripping up the State of the Union speech is 100% illegal.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.snopes.com/news/2020/02/06/pelosi-ripping-sotu-illegal/amp/

tl;dr: A printed out copy of a document doesn't meet the criteria of a document meant for preservation in an official capacity. If it was the only physical copy and had been formally submitted and checked with the clerk, it would potentially have been a violation, but that was not the case.

 

[wedge_destroyer]

I was mainly referring to the familial guilt by association and inflicting punishment as such, which is something of a hallmark of the Kim Regimes.

Outside of the flagrant disregard of established whistle blower protections for those who acting in good faith and who go through the proper channels, which is what happened in this particular case.

It's also not a great look putting petty personal vendettas ahead of national security.

If Trump did do anything against the rule of law, who would hold him accountable? The Senate has shown they don't care, and Barr definitely isn't doing anything.

Ah I see, I dont directly correlate punishing the family with the Kims heavily, as it is a tactic used by a large portion of dictators, despots and their regimes throughout history. I mean its literally biblical.

So after a very quick brushup, he dealt with The Infamous Whistleblower, but apparently was not one himself but was perhaps the one who leaked the info to the whistleblower. Schiff stopped him short from naming the WB during testimony even. So how would he be the WB? Which we were told must have secrecy for safety purposes. Yet there he was all over CNN, by name, rank, and with an expose on his family history. Perhaps i missed something.

Personal vendetta, yea I can see that not a great look especially if looking just at these two. After 3 years of multiple investigations and impeachment, I doubt his base would care, they see all of that as a whitchunt. And this perhaps keeping others from starting.
He is also removing many people from his NSC, the vindmans were the news worthy ones. Bush and Obama did the same variety of house cleaning, its just taking trump 3 years, instead of 3 months.

And holding accountable, well that was supposed to be the house, however they were impatient. Once the subpoenas were ignored those should have been sent to the Judiciary for them to rule on if it was proper use of executive privilege and gone from there. It is one of the reasons the Judiciary are even there. Just as they did with Nixon. Lets not even talk about the minority hearing day (precedent goes back to Andrew Johnson). Straight up they rushed it and got it through on straight party line (after Mueller didnt pan out right for them) and it fell flat accordingly. For them to go our case is solid, 100% and btw we need witnesses that we didnt sort when the ball was in our court. I cant totally blame the senate for going party lockstep in return and saying nope on witnesses as that should have theoretically been done in the house. Its not like you have time 8 weeks to complete it once you start it or its thrown out.

I personally wanted witnesses, ALL of them from BOTH sides, including and especially the whistleblower that kicked off this shitshow. If we are gonna air out the dirty laundry, then lets get it all out there.

Ultimately how is an appointee that runs the Justice Department (part of the Executive branch) going to hold his boss; who can fire him on a firm whim; accountable for anything. Quick answer he wont, he doesnt want to be the next Jeff Sessions.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Ah I see, I dont directly correlate punishing the family with the Kims heavily, as it is a tactic used by a large portion of dictators, despots and their regimes throughout history. I mean its literally biblical.

It was just an off hand remark, I didn't think it was going to garner such analysis.

It was just the first thing that popped into my head as I was reading about it.

I wouldn't call Trump a dictator or despot really, so I felt those terms were a little harsh and inflammatory, as well as distracting.

So after a very quick brushup, he dealt with The Infamous Whistleblower, but apparently was not one himself but was perhaps the one who leaked the info to the whistleblower. Schiff stopped him short from naming the WB during testimony even. So how would he be the WB? Which we were told must have secrecy for safety purposes. Yet there he was all over CNN, by name, rank, and with an expose on his family history. Perhaps i missed something.

I guess we don't know exactly how it played out. Though whistle blower protections don't directly apply to Vindman, it's pretty clear why they're keeping things rather hush. I could see the administration coming down even harder.

I understand part of whistle blowing and/or testifying in a situation like this bears risk.

Personal vendetta, yea I can see that not a great look especially if looking just at these two. After 3 years of multiple investigations and impeachment, I doubt his base would care, they see all of that as a whitchunt. And this perhaps keeping others from starting.
He is also removing many people from his NSC, the vindmans were the news worthy ones. Bush and Obama did the same variety of house cleaning, its just taking trump 3 years, instead of 3 months.

I could see them trying to suss out the whistle blower this way.

It was somewhat known that both Vindman and Sondland were making an exit, the theatrics fall on Trump, not the media, here.

And holding accountable, well that was supposed to be the house, however they were impatient. Once the subpoenas were ignored those should have been sent to the Judiciary for them to rule on if it was proper use of executive privilege and gone from there. It is one of the reasons the Judiciary are even there. Just as they did with Nixon. Lets not even talk about the minority hearing day (precedent goes back to Andrew Johnson). Straight up they rushed it and got it through on straight party line (after Mueller didnt pan out right for them) and it fell flat accordingly. For them to go our case is solid, 100% and btw we need witnesses that we didnt sort when the ball was in our court. I cant totally blame the senate for going party lockstep in return and saying nope on witnesses as that should have theoretically been done in the house. Its not like you have time 8 weeks to complete it once you start it or its thrown out.

I don't think the case was at all weak as is. More witnesses would have strengthened it for sure, as well as made Trump look even worse, but there was no chance. None.

We'll see how this pans out down the road, now that senators are on record.

I personally wanted witnesses, ALL of them from BOTH sides, including and especially the whistleblower that kicked off this shitshow. If we are gonna air out the dirty laundry, then lets get it all out there.

I would have no problem with the whistle blower testifying...if Trump did as well. You can't have it both ways.

Ultimately how is an appointee that runs the Justice Department (part of the Executive branch) going to hold his boss; who can fire him on a firm whim; accountable for anything. Quick answer he wont, he doesnt want to be the next Jeff Sessions.

Perhaps that is why I said Barr would not do anything.

 

[wedge_destroyer]

It was just an off hand remark, I didn't think it was going to garner such analysis.

It was just the first thing that popped into my head as I was reading about it.

I wouldn't call Trump a dictator or despot really, so I felt those terms were a little harsh and inflammatory, as well as distracting.

I can see where it may have caught you off guard, but sometimes off hand comments can carry meaning.

Wasnt trying be inflamatory or distracting but i felt the door had been opened via a comment with N Korea.

I guess we don't know exactly how it played out. Though whistle blower protections don't directly apply to Vindman, it's pretty clear why they're keeping things rather hush. I could see the administration coming down even harder.

I understand part of whistle blowing and/or testifying in a situation like this bears risk.

Thats the thing that we could have found out if the house took more time, or with senate witnesses.
As far as hush hush, could be several reasons, malicious or not, we cant really say.

I know it does and thats why I wasnt too up in arms about who it is.

I could see them trying to suss out the whistle blower this way.

It was somewhat known that both Vindman and Sondland were making an exit, the theatrics fall on Trump, not the media, here.

Yes thats possible, however im certain some people outside of the approved circle already know. Too many leaks in Washington.

Yes the whole thing screams dog and pony show.

I don't think the case was at all weak as is. More witnesses would have strengthened it for sure, as well as made Trump look even worse, but there was no chance. None.

We'll see how this pans out down the road, now that senators are on record.

I was not implying the case was weak, simply that there were some items that procedurally werent done, that traditionally were. The weakest point is that they didnt wait for the Judiciary to do its job, to rule in regards to if subpoenas are null under executive privilege.

I would have no problem with the whistle blower testifying...if Trump did as well. You can't have it both ways.



Perhaps that is why I said Barr would not do anything.

There is a reason I said all. I only wanted it one way complete and fully transparent

And in the interest of personal transparency, I have never voted for a D or R when it comes to president.

Yes sorry, its just strange to me that some people dont understand the structures (that part was not really directed to you just a bit of venting from an earlier convo, my bad.)

 

[MaxOfMetal]

I just don't see a different outcome had they waited, aside from hearing out the judiciary, with either call certainly going to appeal.

Their base was champing at the bit, they had the votes, and figured giving the judiciary its time would have allowed the White House to better hide and obfuscate.

The goal was never removal, or even conviction, it was putting a solid case to the Senate to go on record with. That was accomplished.

Was it worthwhile? We'll have to wait and see.

 

[sleewell]

Alright, I was definitely very wrong here, thats my bad going off a usually good source being wrong(No it wasn't Facebook).

But at least we can agree about Kansas city being in Kansas am i rite

Interesting how faux news runs with a clearly debunked story for days and lemmings just lap it up and repeat it over and over again though isn't it?


In terms of civility how about the congressman who shouted out you lie during the state of the union? Did that make it on faux n friends?

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Interesting how faux news runs with a clearly debunked story for days and you lemmings just lap it up and repeat it over and over again though isn't it?

Take it down a notch. I understand the frustration, but try to keep it...*sigh*...civil.

 

[narad]

I just don't see a different outcome had they waited, aside from hearing out the judiciary, with either call certainly going to appeal.

Their base was champing at the bit, they had the votes, and figured giving the judiciary its time would have allowed the White House to better hide and obfuscate.

The goal was never removal, or even conviction, it was putting a solid case to the Senate to go on record with. That was accomplished.

Was it worthwhile? We'll have to wait and see.

Well I get into this argument with my dad, who is a sort of "forever acquitted" guy. Of course the goal was never removal, but I think it was a significant enough event that 10, 20 years from now, when we look back on this without any political skin-in-the-game, Trump's behavior will be a forever shameful blot on presidential history (at least, in the more reliably recorded times).

I don't think impeachment was a particularly useful political move, maybe even a bad one, but it was effectively earmarking a particular set of Trump actions for future people to review. Like when Nixon was impeached, I could imagine there maybe was not as much of a backlash to him as there is now? Or maybe if he was impeached during a booming economy and not a quagmire of a conflict out in Vietnam. When we think Nixon now, we simply think "oh ya, the one that was impeached for real". I think we'll think similarly of Trump.

 

[Randy]

Trump and his followers is the classic abusive relationship, and he'll continue to abuse them and they'll continue to make excuses for him. Only solution is for him to be taken away from them, and November looks like the only path there. You'll be amazed how quick you won't be able to find anybody that liked the guy all that much after that.