S
Spaten
Guest
Their intent is obvious. The problem is the number of people who follow them, especially the Senate Republicans.
- Status
Their intent is obvious. The problem is the number of people who follow them, especially the Senate Republicans.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Trump didn’t create the treaty with Ukraine that requires both to cooperate in investigating corruption. And at least some of the information in the Steel dossier did originate in Ukraine. But I guess Democrats can’t be investigated. Mueller and his Democrat associates spent nearly three years investigating supposed foreign influence in our election, and in the course of it invade homes at night, violate attorney-client privilege, and threaten peoples’ children. But Republicans even ask a foreign president to honor his treaty obligations, and it’s “mafia state”.
What we’re really looking at is the potential for an administrative state dictatorship run by the Dems. They corrupted the IRS, the CIA, the FBI, and other administrative agencies, all of which have the power to investigate.
What we’re really looking at is the potential for an administrative state dictatorship run by the Dems. They corrupted the IRS, the CIA, the FBI, and other administrative agencies, all of which have the power to investigate.
S
Spaten
Guest
I suggest you actually read the article.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I did. It’s a partisan opinion piece without any facts not already long since in the public domain.
G
Guinness
Guest
The country would be a so much better place if we could only get rid of the 50% who disagree with us…
Last edited:
S
Spaten
Guest
Since the FACTS are already known, what is there to dispute? Why is there a need for NEW FACTS? The old ones are bad enough. And a correct summary is always useful.
No need for such a drastic step. That is what the autocrats like to do. See the “infamous” Trump slogan: “Let them go back to the s*thole country they came from!” - when he talked about some Democrat House members.
Last edited:
G
Guinness
Guest
If you’re not going to get rid of the 50% of Americans who support Trump’s autocratic rule, how do you propose to stop him? Kindness and tolerance didn’t work with Hitler, so I’m not sure why you expect it to work with Trump, who I’m reliably told, is even worse.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Fortunately Trump’s support does not rise to that level.
Although that is about the fraction who want hiom impeached and removed.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
All the FACTS establish is that Trump asked Zelensky to do what he’s obligated by treaty to do. But I understand that Dems figure they can obstruct justice and it’s okay. The law is only for Repubs. I get it, and I think the voters will too.
D
Dr_Meinheimer
Guest
Speaking of facts, he wasn’t talking about the House Dems. They were talking immigration and the visa program.
D
dvdjs
Guest
The ask by Trump of Zelensky violated the protocols of the treaty. That is a fact easily verified by reading the treaty.
D
dvdjs
Guest
In the interest of facts, it is worth noting that although Trump he did not repeat the crude vulgarity, he did make the same kind of remarks against certain members of Congress.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
I read the first bit, and was laughing. When you put someone in charge as a President, CEO, or dare I say POTUS, they are supposed to act like they are running things, even if their term is temporary.
D
Dr_Meinheimer
Guest
Oh I know what he said later, but since he was arguing about facts, might as well be tight with them. You of all people should appreciate picking apart the minutiae.
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
I do. Especially when the ostensible fact is presented not a paraphrase but as a quote.
S
Spaten
Guest
Strictly within limits allowed by the Constitution. There is the concept of “inherent contempt”, which allows the House to force the subpoenaed witnesses to come and give testimony under oath. If they refuse, the Sergeant-at-Arms can be called up to throw them into jail AND also fine them a substantial sum - say 10 or 20 thousand dollars every day - until they comply. All legal and in the Constitution.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You are conflating getting rid of Trump with getting rid of Trump supporters. When the Nixon impeachment investigation first started, Nixon’s support was higher than Trump’s. But after facts came out, his support dropped drastically. Nobody had to “get rid” of Nixon supporters. They simply stopped being Nixon supporters. One can hope that the same thing might happen now with Trump.
But on the subject of getting rid of 50% of the people, how do Trump supporters who have followed his lead on demonizing the Democrats to the extent he has expect to get rid of all those Democrats? Do they expect that by being told repeatedly that they are the “Party of Evil” and every other bad name one can think of, that this half of the population is going to suddenly say “Oh, yes, we see the error of our ways. We have been very very bad, and promise to vote Republican from now on.” ???
Demonizing the other side is exactly how genocides and other atrocities against groups develop. Unless both sides stop trash-talking the other side as if this were a sporting event, it cannot end well.
G
Guinness
Guest
So you’re figuring Trump’s going to play by the rules? That doesn’t sound very autocratic to me.
When Nixon was President, you had 3 major networks and a few major metropolitan newspapers that all echoed pretty much the same story. Controlling public opinion was pretty easy. Now you have alternatives that aren’t just going to report “facts” intended to harm Trump, they’re going to report the other side. You may not like PJMedia, Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, et. al., but Trump’s supporters do and that’s where they get their “facts”. Impeachment has been going on since Trump was elected, almost 3 years, and his supporters are showing no signs of abandoning him.
It’s not Trump supporters who are banning people on Twitter, Facebook, etc. it’s his opponents.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
People who support politicians who support killing children are not likely to be greatly affected if their party is called “evil”.
I don’t think Democrats are ready to face what their party is just yet. But eventually they might. Euphemizing killing is not going to make it any easier for them. Candy-coating it only scandalizes the young.
It’s not exactly a matter of voting Republican either. I was a lifelong Democrat and might still lwould be one but for the party forcing a decision for abortion or opting out. So it’s not impossible.
I do vote for Repubs because all the Dems on my ballot are pro-abortion.
I don’t think Democrats are ready to face what their party is just yet. But eventually they might. Euphemizing killing is not going to make it any easier for them. Candy-coating it only scandalizes the young.
It’s not exactly a matter of voting Republican either. I was a lifelong Democrat and might still lwould be one but for the party forcing a decision for abortion or opting out. So it’s not impossible.
I do vote for Repubs because all the Dems on my ballot are pro-abortion.
T
Theo520
Guest
Can someone expand on the “autocratic rule”?
To my knowledge, Congress has failed to deliver on most of his key legislative requests. That just leaves Trump managing the departments that report to every POTUS, same as every other POTUS.
- Status