You mean about “tarmac” Loretta and “the gun runner” Eric? The allegations are well supported
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Can our democracy survive if most Republicans think the government is illegitimate?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
AG’s try things and work to make the country better. Some attempts work and some do not.You mean about “tarmac” Loretta and “the gun runner” Eric? The allegations are well supported
Don’t confuse that with corruption. Please don’t libel the lawyers like that.
This particular mayor has a reputation of failing to maintain streets and reducing public transportation to poorer neighborhoodsI think a a city mayor has had more dealings with the reality and issues of transportation than a surgeon who retired under a cloud had with public housing. I do.
Yeah, meeting with the husband of a woman under investigation on an airplane is one that didn’t work well.AG’s try things and work to make the country better. Some attempts work and some do not.
Neither did running guns to Mexican criminals.
It doesn’t confuse. It defines corruptionDon’t confuse that with corruption. Please don’t libel the lawyers like that.
S
silentwitness
Guest
The swamp is a political class like the old Aristocracy. You just have to look at Joe Biden’s son’s activities. There is no need to go back to JFK. If you are officially not on the books then you can escape much scrutiny unless an outsider like Trump pushes the envelope. Look at the Democrats impeaching President Trump, often skating on legal thin ice, not to mention blatant lies to do it when he went anywhere near questioning the Biden’s corrupt nature. Look at the plethora of swamp creatures that came to testify against Trump, first ridiculously behind closed doors which could not be reported on and then eventually in the open. None of them had any evidence of Trump wrong doing, but Congress dragged out the affair just like they did with the Russian collusion hitjob. That is the political class in action. One of many times in the last four years.Thinking back, wasn’t JFK the last president though to appoint a family member to be on staff at the White House? It is the last one I remember. I know nepotism is nothing new, but it does belie the whole “drain the swamp” idea, unless nepotism is not considered problematic, which is just odd.
Now Trump is not above criticism but when family members have successful results like the normalisation of peaceful interactions amongst nations whose dispute has been the source of much intractable world division and war then i judge them on that result. Like Trump himself, when the results are measurably better from these people who we can say lack experience then that shows the swamp as not only corrupt but inept and perhaps purposefully so.
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
Not particularly.“the gun runner” Eric? The allegations are well supported
During the June 12, 2012, Senate hearing, Eric Holder stated, "If you want to talk about Fast and Furious, I’m the Attorney General that put an end to the misguided tactics that were used in Fast and Furious.”
Holder’s statements were as valuable as the paper your response isn’t written on.During the June 12, 2012, Senate hearing, Eric Holder stated, "If you want to talk about Fast and Furious, I’m the Attorney General that put an end to the misguided tactics that were used in Fast and Furious.”
S
silentwitness
Guest
Yes Jharek, the very same one. He definitely was (and to some extent still is) a POLITICAL outsider and it is politics we are discussing.
The fact is that the Left have basically created the aristocracy of the past which is quite ironic.
Trump, just like all people wanting to do business in a modern western democracy, must pay money to the political class. This is no different to tugging the forelock to your political masters.
We have the populace being FORCED to give their wealth to a political class that then gets richer and uses that wealth and power to rule over the people.
If in the past someone fought against the backward politics of aristocracy i do not fault them that once they were part of it. There was no choice but to be part of the backward aristocratic system of government because it is all consuming.
Trump is the political outsider leading the opposition to the Leftist retreat into what is today’s political aristocracy, feeding off a subdued population.
The fact is that the Left have basically created the aristocracy of the past which is quite ironic.
Trump, just like all people wanting to do business in a modern western democracy, must pay money to the political class. This is no different to tugging the forelock to your political masters.
We have the populace being FORCED to give their wealth to a political class that then gets richer and uses that wealth and power to rule over the people.
If in the past someone fought against the backward politics of aristocracy i do not fault them that once they were part of it. There was no choice but to be part of the backward aristocratic system of government because it is all consuming.
Trump is the political outsider leading the opposition to the Leftist retreat into what is today’s political aristocracy, feeding off a subdued population.
Last edited:
P
Petra202
Guest
Why does it favor one party over the other? Both parties are free to sway ALL states with their platforms and speeches! No candidate should ignore ANY states as they are ALL important!
J
JimG
Guest
The EC requires that a president be elected by a majority of States.
P
Petra202
Guest
And is that not treason? Why is there no consequence for lying over and over? And don’t say DJT did it! He exaggerated but he did not try to destroy the country!
D
Dovekin
Guest
The article you posted disproves this claim, showing the allegations were disputed all along. They quote the exoneration of Holder so they can ridicule it, but the exoneration still stands. People can ridicule anything, that is not part of establishing the truth of something.The allegations are well supported
.
“Gun walking” started during the Bush presidency and continued under Obama. It was a stupid policy that should have been suppressed earlier than it was. But Holder’s involvement is not “well supported” so his corrupt involvement could not be “well supported.”
R
Randolph
Guest
You should be reminded that in 1992 Bill Clinton won 43% of the popular votes. Do you wish to exclude Bill Clinton from your analysis?First, in a winner-take-all presidential system, Americans are increasingly subject to minority rule. Since 1992, with a single exception (in 2004), no Republican presidential candidate has won a majority of the popular vote. Trump is a remarkable figure in American politics, but he got just 46.1 percent of the popular vote in 2016 and 46.8 percent last month, strikingly similar to John McCain’s and Mitt Romney’s totals. Nevertheless, since 1992, Republicans have occupied the White House for 12 years and run the Senate for 18 years, thanks to rules that guarantee rural overrepresentation.
Last edited:
Did Holder commit treason? I don’t think so.And is that not treason? Why is there no consequence for lying over and over? And don’t say DJT did it! He exaggerated but he did not try to destroy the country!
Not all corruption is treason. Not all lying to Congress is treason
Swalwell, on the other hand, let’s just say I await more evidence.
Last edited:
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Since this article was talking about Republicans, why would BillClinton be included?You should be reminded that in 1992 Bill Clinton won 43% of the popular votes. Do you wish to exclude Bill Clinton from your analysis?
P
puer.dei
Guest
He tried to overthrow the presidential election, and disenfranchise 80 million voters. That’s a lot more dangerous than “he exaggerated.”He exaggerated but he did not try to destroy the country!
R
Randolph
Guest
Your point was:
You analysis seemed to conveniently ignore data that weaken your point. If you want to be credible in political analyses, you need to present your points fairly and objectively. Now, if you choose to be a partisan political hack, then you can say whatever you want.
The fact is, In 1992, Bill Clinton—a Democrat—won the presidency with 43% (less than majority)of the popular votes—which, by the way, is 3.1% less than Donald Trump in 2016…Since 1992, with a single exception (in 2004), no Republican presidential candidate has won a majority of the popular vote. Trump is a remarkable figure in American politics, but he got just 46.1 percent of the popular vote in 2016 and 46.8 percent last month, strikingly similar to John McCain’s and Mitt Romney’s totals.
You analysis seemed to conveniently ignore data that weaken your point. If you want to be credible in political analyses, you need to present your points fairly and objectively. Now, if you choose to be a partisan political hack, then you can say whatever you want.
Last edited:
P
PaulinVA
Guest
However, when I’m quoting an article, the article is what the article is.You analysis seemed to conveniently ignore data that weaken your point. If you want to be credible in political analyses, you need to present your points fairly and objectively.
F
F_Marturana
Guest
In 1992 there were three candidates, Clinton, Bush and Ross Perot.
Ross Perot received over 18 % of the vote.
Adding Bush received about 37% of the popular vote.
Ross Perot was the game changer.
Ross Perot received over 18 % of the vote.
Adding Bush received about 37% of the popular vote.
Ross Perot was the game changer.
Last edited:
R
Randolph
Guest
You were making your own 2 points. Should I re-post your 2 points?However, when I’m quoting an article, the article is what the article is.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.