US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[em2nought]

When people cast their votes in 2016, it seems too often they did so without talking it over with anyone -- and that had negative implications for those individuals and society at large. We are at risk of this happening again in 2020.

Gee, I wonder where that author's sympathies lie?

[August]

I'm still waiting to see the negative consequences they keep talking about. The economy is booming, our taxes have gone down and the liberals are angry and upset. It all seems pretty positive to me...

[u crank]

Yea.

When people cast their votes in 2016, it seems too often they did so without talking it over with anyone -- and that had negative implications for those individuals and society at large. We are at risk of this happening again in 2020.

I know it is CNN and I realize that it is an opinion piece. Never the less that sentement expressed there says all you need to know about the Progressive Left in America today. If your vote dissagrees with the Progressive Left you have voted the wrong way. You have made a mistake that needs to be corrected. I would have thought that in the democratic process voting for your preferred candidate is a choice. But apparently not. This person thinks that choice can be a mistake rather than a political decision. And how do you know that? Easy. People like this guy will tell you. Remarkably that lack of self awareness was probably one of a number of reasons the 2016 election went the way it did.

[Mr Quatro]

Same results without Russian interference this time ... My family talks about it all of the time ... so far it's one against Trump and 8 for Trump

[August]

I want to see Trump win the popular vote so i can watch my local politicians have to award our electoral votes to him because they signed that silly interstate pact.

[u crank]

Logic is a funny thing. When it comes to politics it can best be discribed as relative. Depends on where you are standing and what you are looking at. And it also depends on who you are talking to.

A case in point is the use of the word 'transparency'. That word, like collusion, gets used a lot these days.

So President Trump has granted Attorney General William P. Barr “full and complete authority” to declassify government secrets, issuing a memorandum late Thursday that orders U.S. intelligence agencies to cooperate promptly with Barr’s audit of the investigation into Russia’s election interference in 2016. Dispite what critics in the media and Democrat politicians are saying this will not result in the wholesale publication of this information. Far from it. Trump has order Barr's DOJ to work with the inteligence agencies and produce relevant material.

So now the logic part with regards to transparency. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) who just happens to be the House Intelligence Committee Chairman, has spent the last two years demanding every possible bit of information about the President. He wants to know the color of his underwear and if he has ever spit on the sidewalk on Pennsylvania Avenue. Yet remarkably Mr. Schiff has had a change of heart, (or logic), and now thinks 'transparency' is bad. Even “un-American”. He tweets...

While Trump stonewalls the public from learning the truth about his obstruction of justice,

Trump and Barr conspire to weaponize law enforcement and classified information against their political enemies.

The coverup has entered a new and dangerous phase.

This is un-American.

The most unbelievably ironic part is...

...to weaponize law enforcement and classified information against their political enemies.

We are about to find out if this is not the exact thing that the Obama administration did. And if that is true who knew what and how did they know? And why would this be a bad thing and 'un-American'? And why would Rep. Schiff and others not want to know if anything wrong or illegal was done? I can only think of one reason.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by u crank

Logic is a funny thing.

It is, isn't it?

[em2nought]

I believe we're about to see much more of this on an epic scale.

[Skybird]

I did not know the name Erin Burnett.

Now I know.

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/polit...e-ebof-vpx.cnn

Impressive performance, Mrs. Burnett!

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I did not know the name Erin Burnett.

Now I know.

Since you did not know who Erin Burnett is then you are obviously unfamiliar with CNN as seen in Canada and the USA.

Hmmm....where to begin. First of all, there is not a single segment or on air personality at CNN who is not obviously bias against the President and nothing they say can be taken seriously. That ship has sailed long ago. It is of no surprise then to see their attitude toward Robert Mueller as bordering on messanic worship.

Not everyone holds that opinion of Mr. Mueller. Here is a different one.

https://www.meridianstar.com/opinion...de620e09a.html

In the end, by-the-book Robert Mueller departed wildly from the book.

He invented an extraconstitutional legal standard for his obstruction investigation and acted, at best, in violation of the spirit of the special-counsel regulations.

His departing act was a public statement meant to influence the public debate in a manner inappropriate for a prosecutor, in part because the long public report he wrote that was also inappropriate for a prosecutor lacked clarity.

Mueller's statement, "if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so" is a stunning statement for someone of Mueller's standing. What Mueller is saying is "Trump is Not Not a Criminal". It goes against everything the American legal system stands for. Prosecutors do not find accused people innocent or guilty. Judges and juries do that. Prosecutors either indict or do not indict. There is no grey, wishy washy middle ground. But that is the exact ground that Mueller has taken.

An institutionalist who lost his way, Mueller will be lionized for the duration since he's been so useful to Trump's opposition, but his performance won't age well – and shouldn't.

[Mr Quatro]

I'm starting to think that Mueller was thinking all along that he and his team would not be the trigger man for Trump, but let the dice tumble where they may on the US Congress deciding the fate of the POTUS with what he was not allowed to do under Justice Department rules, which included not being able to indict a sitting president.

Mueller couldn't get the job done and had no way of knowing till last November that the US Congress would be the Democrats leading a anti-Trump rally to dump the president.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

Since you did not know who Erin Burnett is then you are obviously unfamiliar with CNN as seen in Canada and the USA.

Hmmm....where to begin. First of all, there is not a single segment or on air personality at CNN who is not obviously bias against the President and nothing they say can be taken seriously. That ship has sailed long ago. It is of no surprise then to see their attitude toward Robert Mueller as bordering on messanic worship.

Not everyone holds that opinion of Mr. Mueller. Here is a different one.

https://www.meridianstar.com/opinion...de620e09a.html



Mueller's statement, "if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so" is a stunning statement for someone of Mueller's standing. What Mueller is saying is "Trump is Not Not a Criminal". It goes against everything the American legal system stands for. Prosecutors do not find accused people innocent or guilty. Judges and juries do that. Prosecutors either indict or do not indict. There is no grey, wishy washy middle ground. But that is the exact ground that Mueller has taken.

u_crank,
quotes given by Mueller are not just "an opinion about Mueller". Mueller spoke for himself, and his words were clear and devastating and speak for themselves, too. The way he formulated, shows the man'S class who even in the face of his enemy refuses to loose style and manners, different to that enemy's usual idiot behavior. I thought that already before the broadcast with Erin brunett, when I first heard what Mueller said. Burnett just made it crystal clear that even the deafest guy in the backcorner of the room could understand what Mueller said. His formulations were chosen with precision. He may not stomp his feet like Trump does, but right for that precision his strike penetrates even deeper.



Bias had little to do with it, and I do not care for claims made about the political enemy'S home broadcaster and how biased they are. Mueller spoke for himself, and his words were a broadside.The conclusion from what he said: Trump is no innocent, but it is only formal reasons preventing him getting charged by Department of Justice. The proper way to hold him accountable is that Congress now must start procedures against Trump. And that he, Mueller, thinks that Congress must udnerstand that it has no other choice.


The video I linked, is not the complete video, which i actually saw on cable TV here. I do not waqtch foreign news prgrams thtsa much anymore like I did in the past, but on that day it just happened. Brunett in the same broadcast program had a guest, some congressman, and she confrointed him with the imoplications of Mueller'S wording. The guy struggled and surimed and tried to wrerst himself out of her direct questions, but to no avail. He obviously illustrates an attotude that fully understands that Congresss by all remaining sense of the constitutional orde rmust open imperachment procedjures agaiunst Trump, but for some reasons denies reality and at no cost wants to do so.



Mueller made it quite clear thathe thinks Trump did wrong and must be held accoutnable, and that only formla reasons are why he, Mueller, or the department of Justice cannot do it. Its also clear that his senior boss, Barr, betrays the public with his way of summarizing what Mueller should have meant - but neither meant nor said.



A see a lot of integrity in Mueller's stand and style. If I compare his modest yet determined wayand comoare it to the infantile, childish feet-stomping of this illiterate spoiled child in the white house, I can just laugh about this carricature of a president. That this child nevertheless managed to kick the US into the deepest constitutional system crisis one could imagine, is not such that it rebuilds trust into it. It already began to beocme obvious with the second Bush and his childish rethoric.



In Britain, the state also is in a deep constitutional crisis. And in the EU, states work on replacing their constitutional orders voluntarily with that of the continental super state, choosing both legally valid and illegal ways for that. Seems the whole west is at a political turning poiint, a voluntary or involuntary replacement of its former state orders. The turmoil maybe is helped by Russia and China to boost their own benefits from that, but I doubt they are the only triggers. The EU states started it all by themselves and at a time already when said Russian and Chinese pressure by far was not that intense already.

[Dowly]

Media and a lot of people seem to take what Mueller said as new revelation, but he quite literally repeated what was already in the report word for word.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Bias had little to do with it,

Bias has something to do with it. The American news media is completely biased one way or the other.

The conclusion from what he said: Trump is no innocent, but it is only formal reasons preventing him getting charged by Department of Justice.

Mueller made it quite clear thathe thinks Trump did wrong and must be held accoutnable, and that only formla reasons are why he, Mueller, or the department of Justice cannot do it. Its also clear that his senior boss, Barr, betrays the public with his way of summarizing what Mueller should have meant - but neither meant nor said.

I'm sorry but that is just not true. DOJ policy prevents a sitting President from being indicted but there was nothing preventing Mueller from making that recomendation. He did not. Mueller used this policy to pass the buck to AG Barr. Then his staff complained about it. Why? Because he knew that there was not sufficient evidence to get a conviction. Not in a court of law. Congress is a different story.

A see a lot of integrity in Mueller's stand and style.

Your regard for Mr. Mueller is noted. As I said not everyone shares in the hero worship. When Mueller was first appointed I had high expectations for a fair, unbiased and quick investigation. That expectation was short lived. Mueller's choice of investigators was the first sign of a biased investigation.

Too many members of Mueller's team were highly partisan Democrat supporters to view him in high regard. Andrew Weissmann publicly supported fired acting AG Sally Yates after she disobeyed a directive from the President. Now he is investigating that President. Jeannie Rhee, as a lawyer represented Obama aide Ben Rhodes and Hillary Clinton’s family charity, the Clinton Foundation. Now she is investigating Trump, Hillary's political rival. Mueller’s lawyers donated $65,657 to federal-level Democrats, $11,850 to state-level Democrats, and a mere $2,750 to federal Republicans.

Mueller's treatment of non violent and elderly targets Paul Manafort and Roger Stone borders on thug tactics that would make Stalin proud. Shameful.

Then there is Mueller's recent performance for the media to drool over. Mueller says that his report speaks for itself, then proceeds to explain it. He breaks long establish rules about presumed innocence and the role of a prosecutor and people like Erin Burnett fall over themselves with praise for him. Sad.

Then there is Mueller's refusal to answer any questions from the media. If any other person who just completed a two year investigation of the President of the USA tried that the outcry would be loud and long. Why does Mueller get a pass?

There are some very relevent questions that Mr. Mueller needs to answer and if it takes a subpoena to get them so be it. One of them for sure would be at what point in the investigation did Mueller realize that no Americans colluded with Russia in regards to the 2016 election? Some people have suggested that it was late 2017 or early in 2018. Why did Mueller not announce the President or any American's innocence as soon as possible? Why no deep dive into the known Russia connection to the 2016 election, the Steel dossier and it's conection to Clinton's campaign? Mueller's refusal to answer questions is a stunning display of arrogance. Mueller is a mere human and his mistakes will become more evident as time goes by.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

That this child nevertheless managed to kick the US into the deepest constitutional system crisis one could imagine

Skybird stop drinking the liberal media kool-aid and read the following very carefully:

There is no constitutional crisis here in the US. None, nada, nope.

The US Constitution is not in danger of being either abrogated, threatened or ignored, and certainly not by Donald Trump. Any media shill who claims otherwise is a partisan playing on the fears of the ignorant like they have been doing ever since Trump won the election.

Democrats very stridently tried to claim that Trump wouldn't accept the results of the election but really it's they who can't accept the result and for the past two and a half years they have used every weapon at their disposal including an enormous media machine in increasingly apparent and desperate attempts to destroy his presidency.

No wonder liberal media bastions like CNN are tanking. They can only cry wolf with biased claptrap billed as "Breaking News" so often before people start tuning them out and their ratings show it.