...is a thing of the past. The Constitution is dead. If they can do this to the President, they can do it to each and every one of you, right after they deprive you of your ability to defend yourself and your family. Your very existence is now at the whim and pleasure of the ruling class.
Soon, they will make you dance and beg for every scrap of sustenance and the medicine which could save your family from agonizing death.
...is a thing of the past. The Constitution is dead. If they can do this to the President, they can do it to each and every one of you, right after they deprive you of your ability to defend yourself and your family. )
Absolutely none of that is true. Absolutely nothing has changed.
The President has been accused of a crime. That accusation is being investigated. No trial has yet taken place. Nothing you have mentioned has or will happen.
You should be more concerned that you are willfully allowing your “feelings” to blind your intellect. Normalizing criminal behavior because you think it will benefit your “team” is the real Republic killer.
I’m dumbfounded that old dudes that have been around the block a few times can’t recognize a conman when they see one.
Absolutely none of that is true. Absolutely nothing has changed.
The President has been accused of a crime. That accusation is being investigated. No trial has yet taken place. Nothing you have mentioned has or will happen.
You should be more concerned that you are willfully allowing your “feelings” to blind your intellect. Normalizing criminal behavior because you think it will benefit your “team” is the real Republic killer.
I’m dumbfounded that old dudes that have been around the block a few times can’t recognize a conman when they see one.
I don't even know where to begin, so I will start with this: Of what crime has he been accused? Please cite the statute.
So the Democrats in the House specifically Shiff, can hold secret hearings, which dont allow the accused to even have a representative present or to be able to ask questions or to call witnesses in their defense. And somehow this the American system of justice? And for Shiff and his buddies to leak things that would look bad on the accused is proper too?
Even with this new vote in the House there is still no formal impeachment ongoing. And with this resolution the Democrats get to decide who and what the Republicans can question or what questions can be asked? So I then have to believe that you Boony are alright with this Kangaroo Court. I hope you do realise that there may come a time when the tables might be turned.
So far there has been no actual evidence, just personal opinion of these accusers who are being hidden from the public. That too violates one of our standards of jurisprudence. That the accused has the right to confront his accuser.
As far as I can see we are so far from the norms of our system of justice that we are being given a show of how things work in a backwater third world country by a dictatorship.
I say impeach the likes of Shiff and the other idiots running this farce. If not impeach then vote them out. They don't deserve to represent the American people.
Absolutely none of that is true. Absolutely nothing has changed.
This is patently false. To wit:
quote
Originally posted by williegoat: The American system of justice...is a thing of the past. The Constitution is dead.
This of course is hyperbole, poetic license.
quote
If they can do this to the President, they can do it to each and every one of you,
This is absolutely, undeniably true. I have extrapolated the conclusion from the first phrase.
quote
right after they deprive you of your ability to defend yourself and your family.
The Democrat contenders have clearly and unequivocally stated their intentions to confiscate your weapons.
quote
Your very existence is now at the whim and pleasure of the ruling class.
Soon, they will make you dance and beg for every scrap of sustenance and the medicine which could save your family from agonizing death.
The Democrat contenders have clearly and unequivocally stated their intentions to confiscate that which you have earned by virtue of your sweat and blood, then redistribute it as they see fit.
(edited for clarity @1735 mst)
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 10-31-2019).]
So the Democrats in the House specifically Shiff, can hold secret hearings, which dont allow the accused to even have a representative present or to be able to ask questions or to call witnesses in their defense. And somehow this the American system of justice? And for Shiff and his buddies to leak things that would look bad on the accused is proper too?
Even with this new vote in the House there is still no formal impeachment ongoing. And with this resolution the Democrats get to decide who and what the Republicans can question or what questions can be asked? So I then have to believe that you Boony are alright with this Kangaroo Court. I hope you do realise that there may come a time when the tables might be turned.
So far there has been no actual evidence, just personal opinion of these accusers who are being hidden from the public. That too violates one of our standards of jurisprudence. That the accused has the right to confront his accuser.
As far as I can see we are so far from the norms of our system of justice that we are being given a show of how things work in a backwater third world country by a dictatorship.
I say impeach the likes of Shiff and the other idiots running this farce. If not impeach then vote them out. They don't deserve to represent the American people.
Originally posted by Boondawg: Absolutely none of that is true. Absolutely nothing has changed.
The President has been accused of a crime. That accusation is being investigated. No trial has yet taken place. Nothing you have mentioned has or will happen.
You should be more concerned that you are willfully allowing your “feelings” to blind your intellect. Normalizing criminal behavior because you think it will benefit your “team” is the real Republic killer.
I’m dumbfounded that old dudes that have been around the block a few times can’t recognize a conman when they see one.
I now am sure you are a dumb man. It is sad that you never found your way around the block even one time. You can not even see that your stupidity of lack of intellect, 'feelings', disallows you to gain intellect. I can see why you are dumbfounded.
Normalizing criminal behavior, ? Which law was broken ?
Conman ? Shifty Shifft ? He claimed irrefutable proof that he had proof of Russian collusion during the Mueller 40 million dollar independent council two year investigation. Shifty Schift, he put up and then shut up after Mueller's investigation produced futile eggs. Now he is the judge, jury, and executioner.
He is investigating to find a crime. To fit his feelings. If there was a crime, why has not your President not been charged by Articles of Impeachment ?
This is directed towards "williegoat", although anyone that wants to be Civilized about it, is also invited to comment.
I keep thinking back to the time before the 2018 midterms, when the Republicans still had a majority in the House. There was this moment when it seemed that the President was on the precipice of having an Agreement with the Democrats in Congress about Immigration and the southern border. Some "serious" Southern Border Wall money, balanced against what the Democrats wanted. Such as accommodation of the "Dreamers." I don't have command of all of the legislative proposals that were "on the table". I would have to try to look it up from references and news reports.
Then the Agreement that seemed to be in the offing, according to the media reports that I was following, was broken up, in conjunction with what was reported (my sources) as an "acrimonious" meeting between the President and the Democratic leadership in Congress.
I think of that as a turning point in Trump's presidency. A turning point away from possibilities, and towards irresolvable, partisan (R vs D) conflicts and nihilism.
I wonder how others think about what happened with that, in retrospect.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-31-2019).]
This is directed towards "williegoat", although anyone that wants to be Civilized about it, is also invited to comment...
I wonder how others think about what happened with that, in retrospect.
I have stated my opinions regarding our border with Mexico many times over the years; from the perspective of one who lives relatively close, one who has made that crossing countless times and who has spent quite a bit of time south of the border over the years. I am not sure how any of that experience, or the inability of the Democrats to come up with any meaningful, constructive solution, is germane to the current topic, other than the fact that it further demonstrates their obstructive bent.
If I didn’t know any better, I would call this a deflection.
I hear and read a lot of discussion about the question of impeachment of the President. It seems that most devolve into a mix of hyperbole and insult. But, against my better judgement, I'm going to commit my perspective to a post or two.
I am a Conservative, registered Republican. Socially and religiously, I would classify myself as moderate. I am 63 years old. I don't post much, here or anywhere. Okay.
There are things I like about Trump, but certainly not everything. I like his economic policies. I like his foreign policy. But I sincerely wish he had never heard of twitter. I do not think it is very presidential to respond in kind to every insult and personal attack from any quarter, from Hollywood to Tehran to Pyongyang?. Why raise the profile of every two-bit has-been and tin horn dictator who struggles for their 16th minute by popping off in the press? He looks petty and vindictive doing it. He has at times been gracious as well, and projected a dignity befitting the Leader of the Free World. But not often enough.
But regarding the impeachment issue-
I am troubled by the fact that several Democrats have been pursuing impeachment since before Trump took office, as early as December 2016. My feeling is that impeachment should be a reluctant reaction to apparent "high crimes and misdemeanors", rather than an initial objective for which support is sought later. Someone (not drawing a partisan line here, but this was almost exclusively Democrats) has been discussing the possibility of impeachment daily since before the President was inaugurated. During much of this time, talk of impeachment was not accompanied by mention of cause. It's hard to consider this as other than a concerted effort to remove a sitting President by any means necessary.
I am concerned about the House majority's lack of concern for due process. Even with the adoption of today's resolution establishing procedures, the Democratic majority seems to be stacking the deck. Why can the House minority only issue subpoenas for witnesses with the consent of the committee chairs? Why has all investigation and testimony to date been secret? If this is a legal proceeding where a man can be found guilty and punished by law, why, in the United States of America, can a man's accuser be veiled, even to the accused, to the point of anonymity? Further, this process could easily take over a year; why not let the people vote the current President out if he should be removed from office?
SHOULD the President be impeached? It sounds like everyone knows but me. I haven't heard reason enough to convince me... so far. I admit I would find it even more troubling if I do. But right now my biggest concern is that I don't think due process and justice are the motivators here.
There are video clips of Trey Gowdy explaining, during the Benghazi hearings, why he wanted to have (and was having) witness testimony in closed hearings, concealed from the public's immediate view. I was just looking for that, but I couldn't zero in on it right away. I've seen it on MSNBC.
quote
“Because the Ukraine matter has not been investigated by federal authorities or Congress already, Democrats are trying to nail down the facts before they can determine whether to bring articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump, and what such articles should say. Think of it like a grand jury, they have said.
Holding witness interviews in private minimizes political grandstanding by lawmakers and witnesses. It allows professionally trained staff members to ask questions in extended blocks of time, rather than five-minute chunks required in public hearings. And perhaps most important to the investigation, if the testimony remains mostly private, it prevents witnesses from lining up their stories in advance.”
Why Is Democrats’ Impeachment Inquiry Out of Public View? Republicans have railed against the secretive nature of the House impeachment inquiry, but that is typical of congressional investigations. Nicholas Fandos for the New York Times; October 24, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/201...nt-process-scif.html
Fox legal analyst explains to stunned FOX & Friends GOP wrote the ‘secretive’ impeachment rules they now object to Sunny Hundal for Front Page Live; October 25, 2019. https://www.frontpagelive.c...complaining-about/#0
quote
So far, most of the House impeachment investigation into President Trump has taken place behind closed doors — the ordinary process for this sort of investigation, no matter what some House Republicans may claim. The Clinton and Nixon impeachment processes both began with a private investigation to gather facts before taking those facts public, as did the Republican-led House Select Committee on Benghazi’s investigation.
Fox News analyst correct: Impeachment inquiry is following rules by questioning witnesses in private Tom Kertscher for PolitiFact(.com); October 28, 2019. https://www.politifact.com/...hment-inquiry-follo/
BOO..!
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-31-2019).]
I hear and read a lot of discussion about the question of impeachment of the President. It seems that most devolve into a mix of hyperbole and insult. But, against my better judgement, I'm going to commit my perspective to a post or two.
I am a Conservative, registered Republican. Socially and religiously, I would classify myself as moderate. I am 63 years old. I don't post much, here or anywhere. Okay.
There are things I like about Trump, but certainly not everything. I like his economic policies. I like his foreign policy. But I sincerely wish he had never heard of twitter. I do not think it is very presidential to respond in kind to every insult and personal attack from any quarter, from Hollywood to Tehran to Pyongyang?. Why raise the profile of every two-bit has-been and tin horn dictator who struggles for their 16th minute by popping off in the press? He looks petty and vindictive doing it. He has at times been gracious as well, and projected a dignity befitting the Leader of the Free World. But not often enough.
But regarding the impeachment issue-
I am troubled by the fact that several Democrats have been pursuing impeachment since before Trump took office, as early as December 2016. My feeling is that impeachment should be a reluctant reaction to apparent "high crimes and misdemeanors", rather than an initial objective for which support is sought later. Someone (not drawing a partisan line here, but this was almost exclusively Democrats) has been discussing the possibility of impeachment daily since before the President was inaugurated. During much of this time, talk of impeachment was not accompanied by mention of cause. It's hard to consider this as other than a concerted effort to remove a sitting President by any means necessary.
I am concerned about the House majority's lack of concern for due process. Even with the adoption of today's resolution establishing procedures, the Democratic majority seems to be stacking the deck. Why can the House minority only issue subpoenas for witnesses with the consent of the committee chairs? Why has all investigation and testimony to date been secret? If this is a legal proceeding where a man can be found guilty and punished by law, why, in the United States of America, can a man's accuser be veiled, even to the accused, to the point of anonymity? Further, this process could easily take over a year; why not let the people vote the current President out if he should be removed from office?
SHOULD the President be impeached? It sounds like everyone knows but me. I haven't heard reason enough to convince me... so far. I admit I would find it even more troubling if I do. But right now my biggest concern is that I don't think due process and justice are the motivators here.
I may not agree with every single thing I have just read, but I do respect (and as a free-man need) your opinion, and the respectful way with which you present it.
From the beginning, even before he was sworn in, it has been a case of impeachment looking for a reason..and, it has always been about (Gasp!" ) "feelings". Hate, animosity, jealousy, embarrassment, with almost all of it emanating from the fact that HRC lost what almost all liberals and their pundits thought would be a slam dunk victory.
Antifa is about 'feelings'. Mueller investigation was about 'feelings'. The border wall opposition is about 'feelings'.
From the beginning, even before he was sworn in, it has been a case of impeachment looking for a reason..and, it has always been about (Gasp!" ) "feelings". Hate, animosity, jealousy, embarrassment, with almost all of it emanating from the fact that HRC lost what almost all liberals and their pundits thought would be a slam dunk victory.
Antifa is about 'feelings'. Mueller investigation was about 'feelings'. The border wall opposition is about 'feelings'.
That may all very well be true, but none of that can explain/excuse the man's actions. His own words betray him. There is absolutely no way any thinking man can call him honorable. He's an ego-maniacal idiot.
"Draining The Swamp" indeed.
Nothing personal...
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 11-01-2019).]
SDNY is (by many reports) in the midst of a Criminal Investigation of Rudy Giuliani.
Could it be, and eventually become public, that this (seemingly likely) SDNY investigation of Rudy Giuliani is the product of a Referral that was forwarded to SDNY by the Special Counsel's Office... a Referral forwarded to SDNY from Robert Mueller & Co...?
That would be a way that the Mueller investigation lives on, even after the last public appearance in any official capacity by Robert Mueller or any of the other people that were part of it.
Only a Mueller camp follower (like me) would think of going online here with this kind of message.
"The Mueller investigation is over. Long live the Mueller investigation..!"
2020 Republican Presidential candidate Bill Weld in new on-air interview with MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell ~ current impeachment process, comparisons to Nixon impeachment inquiry, 2020 Republican presidential primary elections (or lack thereof) video content, 7 minutes (including the commercial at the beginning of it)
I hear and read a lot of discussion about the question of impeachment of the President. It seems that most devolve into a mix of hyperbole and insult. But, against my better judgement, I'm going to commit my perspective to a post or two.
I am a Conservative, registered Republican. Socially and religiously, I would classify myself as moderate. I am 63 years old. I don't post much, here or anywhere. Okay.
There are things I like about Trump, but certainly not everything. I like his economic policies. I like his foreign policy. But I sincerely wish he had never heard of twitter. I do not think it is very presidential to respond in kind to every insult and personal attack from any quarter, from Hollywood to Tehran to Pyongyang?. Why raise the profile of every two-bit has-been and tin horn dictator who struggles for their 16th minute by popping off in the press? He looks petty and vindictive doing it. He has at times been gracious as well, and projected a dignity befitting the Leader of the Free World. But not often enough.
But regarding the impeachment issue-
I am troubled by the fact that several Democrats have been pursuing impeachment since before Trump took office, as early as December 2016. My feeling is that impeachment should be a reluctant reaction to apparent "high crimes and misdemeanors", rather than an initial objective for which support is sought later. Someone (not drawing a partisan line here, but this was almost exclusively Democrats) has been discussing the possibility of impeachment daily since before the President was inaugurated. During much of this time, talk of impeachment was not accompanied by mention of cause. It's hard to consider this as other than a concerted effort to remove a sitting President by any means necessary.
I am concerned about the House majority's lack of concern for due process. Even with the adoption of today's resolution establishing procedures, the Democratic majority seems to be stacking the deck. Why can the House minority only issue subpoenas for witnesses with the consent of the committee chairs? Why has all investigation and testimony to date been secret? If this is a legal proceeding where a man can be found guilty and punished by law, why, in the United States of America, can a man's accuser be veiled, even to the accused, to the point of anonymity? Further, this process could easily take over a year; why not let the people vote the current President out if he should be removed from office?
SHOULD the President be impeached? It sounds like everyone knows but me. I haven't heard reason enough to convince me... so far. I admit I would find it even more troubling if I do. But right now my biggest concern is that I don't think due process and justice are the motivators here.
I have stated many times that I am not a Trump fan, personally I don't really care for him. I have also stated numerous times that I agree with the direction he is trying to take this country. Having said all that, I have still not heard of one law he has broken. I am a registered Conservative Democrat. Although, that does not mean I vote for the Democrats on the ballot. I vote for the person that most reflects my values.
From the very first day Candidate Trump was declared the victor, some Leftist has been calling for his impeachment. Doesn't seem to matter how it gets done, just as long as it happens. We're going to investigate until we find something! I believe we all know that unless something hard and factual is discovered and proven, the Senate will not convict. So, what's this all about, convincing the voters for the next election that President Trump is not fit to serve in the Oval Office, not that the Dems have a better candidate. They'll take anyone, just as long as it's not Trump.
OK, this process has finally started and I have no doubt it will be drawn out/extended to keep it in the news so that it can have an effect on the next election. This whole process shows us (even if Dems won't admit it) that they will do anything to regain power. Sickens me. Here I had to tolerate all the of the Obama administration and still never called for his removal. The division this country has experienced will only deepen. Anyone thinking this is a good thing is going to be highly disappointed in the end. President Trump may or may not be re-elected but, the injuries inflicted will leave a permanent scars that will affect us for decades if not longer.
There is a faction of our society which is actively working to destroy the very foundation of what has made America the shining beacon which has illuminated the way to the greatest achievements mankind has ever enjoyed.
They seek to stifle free speech, freedom of religion and even free association. They oppose the concept that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that all are entitled to due process.
They eschew established and proven legislative and judicial procedures, in favor of intimidation and violence.
This thread was not meant to be about Donald Trump, but this same faction has used our president as the proverbial “shinny object” with which they can attract the focus of those they intend to subjugate.
Yep it will probably be a drawn out mess regardless of truth, how could it not be. My thoughts haven't changed. The best thing one can do is focus on more important things, things they can actually affect in life, and and ignore the "impeachment" circus.
There is a faction of our society which is actively working to destroy the very foundation of what has made America the shining beacon which has illuminated the way to the greatest achievements mankind has ever enjoyed.
They seek to stifle free speech, freedom of religion and even free association. They oppose the concept that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that all are entitled to due process.
They eschew established and proven legislative and judicial procedures, in favor of intimidation and violence.
This thread was not meant to be about Donald Trump, but this same faction has used our president as the proverbial “shinny object” with which they can attract the focus of those they intend to subjugate.
Let that sink in for a while.
This I do agree with. Focus on principles and foundations.
There is a faction of our society which is actively working to destroy the very foundation of what has made America the shining beacon which has illuminated the way to the greatest achievements mankind has ever enjoyed.
They seek to stifle free speech, freedom of religion and even free association. They oppose the concept that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that all are entitled to due process.
They eschew established and proven legislative and judicial procedures, in favor of intimidation and violence.
This thread was not meant to be about Donald Trump, but this same faction has used our president as the proverbial “shinny object” with which they can attract the focus of those they intend to subjugate.
Let that sink in for a while.
This is exactly what we should be talking about. When we have people in the government that have been there for so long they are now making up or changing the rules without process.
This is exactly what we should be talking about. When we have people in the government that have been there for so long they are now making up or changing the rules without process.
Wars were started for less
I have tried to bring up this subject several times over the years, but never get any response.
Everyone ignores the "regulatory agencies". The DOT, the DOL, the EPA and others; and all of their sub agencies, FMCSA, OSHA, etc. These groups are able to craft regulations which have the effect of law, with little or no public attention or input. They do as they wish regardless of the will of the people. These regulations are often used to reshape policy when it cannot be done through proper legislative channels.
edit:
How many people take the time, occasionally, to peruse the Federal Register?
How many even know what it is?
But I am just a fuzz-faced old gearjammer. What do I Know?
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 11-01-2019).]
I have tried to bring up this subject several times over the years, but never get any response.
Everyone ignores the "regulatory agencies". The DOT, the DOL, the EPA and others; and all of their sub agencies, FMCSA, OSHA, etc. These groups are able to craft regulations which have the effect of law, with little or no public attention or input. They do as they wish regardless of the will of the people. These regulations are often used to reshape policy when it cannot be done through proper legislative channels.
edit:
How many people take the time, occasionally, to peruse the Federal Register?
How many even know what it is?
But I am just a fuzz-faced old gearjammer. What do I Know?
I can't remember the last time that I ever looked at a page of the Federal Register. I think I actually did that, a few times. I remember looking at a listing of Federal contracts or Requests For Proposals. I guess that wasn't the Federal Register. The Federal "something else." But that's neither here nor there.
Steve Bannon has (famously) called for the Deconstruction of the Administrative State, which, if taken literally and all the way out to its logical endpoint, would wipe out all of the federal regulatory agencies like the EPA, the DOT and the DOL (Department of Labor) and their sub-agencies, and all of their power to define and enforce Administrative Law. Which is what "williegoat" is talking about with that message.
It cannot be taken literally and all the way to its logical endpoint. Not in any practical or realistic sense. There has to be a role for Administrative Law in a society that is as large, as diverse, and as technologically progresssive or "engaged" as the United States, in terms of everything from Agriculture to Manufacturing and Trade and everything else that factors into the national economy. Congress itself, and all the state legislatures cannot be nimble enough and responsive enough to be able to govern the country without the delegation of authority that is the basis for the various regulatory agencies and their Administrative Laws, or the "Administrative State."
The regulatory agencies have the attention of the groups and the individuals that are most concerned about specific regulatory issues. Truckers and trucking companies and companies that are most directly dependent on trucking are the people that pay attention to the trucking-related issues that are "in play" at DOT. Chemical manufacturers and "chemicals-centric" companies focus on the EPA, as do various groups and people with intersecting concerns, among them, groups and people that could be broadly categorized as "being concerned that they are about to be poisoned by toxic substances that are the byproducts of various industries and agriculture." Just two examples of a pattern that anyone can easily pick up and run with, in terms of other regulatory agencies, to round out the vastness of the Administrative State.
I think that it can only be dealt with on an item-by-item or issue-by-issue basis, in terms of engaging with Administrative Law and considering whether there are specific regulatory functions that need to be removed from the Administrative State and redefined using the formality of legislation by Congress or by state legislatures... the Legislative State.
No one in any of those agencies is voted into office. The upper positions are political appointments and the remainder are hired by those appointees.
Regulations are written by these bureaucrats, then a "notice of proposed rulemaking" is published in the Federal Register. The NPR usually includes such things as an environmental impact statement and an assessment of the burden the rule might place on affected parties. The NPR is followed by a public comment period, the length of which can vary from months to none. Stakeholders are "invited" to submit comments, some of which may also be published in the FR. There is no requirement to consider any of these comments.
About ten years ago, I started a thread regarding a rule promulgated by the FMCSA which stated that there would no longer be a public comment period for any regulations that they deemed were not sufficiently controversial. In other words, "What we do is none of your business."
I also started a thread some time back about a closed door meeting between Obama and the Teamsters which resulted in a "quid pro quo" where Obama got his appointee approved in exchange for the Teamsters getting the regulations they wanted.
This is how the Federal Government functions on a day to day basis, much like a bunch of mobsters.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 11-01-2019).]
No one in any of those agencies is voted into office. The upper positions are political appointments and the remainder are hired by those appointees.
Regulations are written by these bureaucrats, then a "notice of proposed rulemaking" is published in the Federal Register. The NPR usually includes such things as an environmental impact statement and an assessment of the burden the rule might place on affected parties. The NPR is followed by a public comment period, the length of which can vary from months to none. Stakeholders are "invited" to submit comments, some of which may also be published in the FR. There is no requirement to consider any of these comments.
About ten years ago, I started a thread regarding a rule promulgated by the FMCSA which stated that there would no longer be a public comment period for any regulations that they deemed were not sufficiently controversial. In other words, "What we do is none of your business."
I also started a thread some time back about a closed door meeting between Obama and the Teamsters which resulted in a "quid pro quo" where Obama got his appointee approved in exchange for the Teamsters getting the regulations they wanted.
This is how the Federal Government functions on a day to day basis, much like a bunch of mobsters.
Two examples, but they are examples that (as I see it) are not irreversible. Two examples that call for a readjustment or a fine-tuning of the Administrative State, but not for any kind of abolishment of the FMCSA, or (in the second example) whatever federal department or agency was involved when Obama had that meeting with the Teamsters.
Has President Trump done anything that would encourage you to revisit these two particular issues and possibly see some improvement of the two situations, considering your own personal perspective about it? In theory, at least, it seems very possible that he could repair whatever was "broken" during the Obama administration. President Trump, or Congress, such as it is and has been since the end of the Obama era.
Two examples, but they are examples that (as I see it) are not irreversible. Two examples that call for a readjustment or a fine-tuning of the Administrative State, but not for any kind of abolishment of the FMCSA, or (in the second example) whatever federal department or agency was involved when Obama had that meeting with the Teamsters.
Has President Trump done anything that would encourage you to revisit these two particular issues and possibly see some improvement of the two situations, considering your own personal perspective about it? In theory, at least, it seems very possible that he could repair whatever was "broken" during the Obama administration. President Trump, or Congress, such as it is and has been since the end of the Obama era.
"Two stones do not a mountain make."
Another adage that is equally apt: "Where there is smoke, there is fire."
I never advocated the abolition of all regulatory bodies. Only that they need more oversight and greater accountability to those who they purport to serve.
"I could while away the hour, conferring with the flowers...." - The Strawman
There is a faction of our society which is actively working to destroy the very foundation of what has made America the shining beacon which has illuminated the way to the greatest achievements mankind has ever enjoyed.
They seek to stifle free speech, freedom of religion and even free association. They oppose the concept that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that all are entitled to due process.
They eschew established and proven legislative and judicial procedures, in favor of intimidation and violence.
This thread was not meant to be about Donald Trump, but this same faction has used our president as the proverbial “shinny object” with which they can attract the focus of those they intend to subjugate.
Let that sink in for a while.
I think many in the public who lean left don't even realize that their own ideas, or what they think are their own ideas lead to these ends.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 11-01-2019).]
I think many in the public don't even realize that their own ideas, or what they think are their own ideas lead to these ends.
I wholeheartedly agree. So many don't consider the long term ramifications of their short term desires. The calls for "hate speech" regulations are a prominent example. The fact that this obviously unconstitutional concept is so widely supported adds credence to the first line of my first post in this thread.
Originally posted by rinselberg: I keep thinking back to the time before the 2018 midterms, when the Republicans still had a majority in the House. There was this moment when it seemed that the President was on the precipice of having an Agreement with the Democrats in Congress about Immigration and the southern border. Some "serious" Southern Border Wall money, balanced against what the Democrats wanted. Such as accommodation of the "Dreamers." I don't have command of all of the legislative proposals that were "on the table". I would have to try to look it up from references and news reports.
Then the Agreement that seemed to be in the offing, according to the media reports that I was following, was broken up, in conjunction with what was reported (my sources) as an "acrimonious" meeting between the President and the Democratic leadership in Congress.
I think of that as a turning point in Trump's presidency. A turning point away from possibilities, and towards irresolvable, partisan (R vs D) conflicts and nihilism.
I wonder how others think about what happened with that, in retrospect.
Two things stand out in your retrospection. If Trump still had the House, why was Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer there ?
Is that the meeting where Pelosi and Schumer wanted the cameras turned off ?
The Dumbs wanted x million Dreamers to be allowed. Your President doubled the number in exchange for wall funding. The Dumbs abandoned their Dreamers in opposition to not being able to crate more undocumented voters.
The Dumbs always are in need with people who are beholden to them.
Two things stand out in your retrospection. If Trump still had the House, why was Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer there ?
Is that the meeting where Pelosi and Schumer wanted the cameras turned off ?
The Dumbs wanted x million Dreamers to be allowed. Your President doubled the number in exchange for wall funding. The Dumbs abandoned their Dreamers in opposition to not being able to crate more undocumented voters.
The Dumbs always are in need with people who are beholden to them.
Just a note to those interested: Any "thinking" person you are attempting to converse rationally with will never take your thoughts seriously as long as you continue to use 3rd grade derogatory nicknames to describe those you disagree with.
That may all very well be true, but none of that can explain/excuse the man's actions. His own words betray him. There is absolutely no way any thinking man can call him honorable. He's an ego-maniacal idiot.
"Draining The Swamp" indeed.
Nothing personal...
Have you read the Ukraine phone call transcript? Of course, "Perspective" is ultimately important but, his own words seem (to me) to support No Quid Pro Quo. I encourage you to read the transcript with an open mind. Also, please remember, I'm not a Trump fan.
? Which law was broken ?
of the Obama administration and still never called for his removal. The division this country has experienced will only deepen. Anyone thinking this is a good thing is going to be highly disappointed in the end. President Trump may or may not be re-elected but, the injuries inflicted will leave a permanent scars that will affect us for decades if not longer.
