Trump's Russian Collusion

[MDlaxfan76]

Delay is the dumbest thing the Republicans can allow. This thing could EASILY last until next November.

Odds are very high that turning over Trump rocks will yield the soundbytes that the Dems are looking for going into the election.

Remember Benghazi? Just as I foretold, that's what's happening here. McConnell would do well to expedite the process.

What if this thing drags out, due to Trumps obstinancy rather than the Dems incompetence, until next summer?

New revelations every day (and we know that the wheels will keep coming off of Trumps grift for the next decade). Trump as a petty criminal pasted in media for the next 6 months.

By the time it gets to the Senate for a vote, the window for the Senators to get primaried by Hair Furors machine will have passed. They can voter their conscience, and Pence becomes the nominee as Trump is marched out of office.......

Excellent point!

Interesting hypothesis.

[youthathletics]

Delay is the dumbest thing the Republicans can allow. This thing could EASILY last until next November.

Odds are very high that turning over Trump rocks will yield the soundbytes that the Dems are looking for going into the election.

Remember Benghazi? Just as I foretold, that's what's happening here. McConnell would do well to expedite the process.

What if this thing drags out, due to Trumps obstinancy rather than the Dems incompetence, until next summer?

New revelations every day (and we know that the wheels will keep coming off of Trumps grift for the next decade). Trump as a petty criminal pasted in media for the next 6 months.

By the time it gets to the Senate for a vote, the window for the Senators to get primaried by Hair Furors machine will have passed. They can voter their conscience, and Pence becomes the nominee as Trump is marched out of office.......

Excellent point!

Interesting hypothesis.

It is my understanding that the R's dragging it out is to their benefit. Why?, because of the Barr investigation. They plan to release measures as they find new issues in the investigation.....which seems to keep broadening, instead of narrowing. It could end up that Barr finds and then presents such a black cloud over the entire last administration of the left, that the left will need to retreat or concede before the heat gets too hot. This clears Trump....again, shows that the left was playing games before and during the the last election, and builds the right base for finally fighting back.

I do not like it, b/c I would almost prefer status quo, but Trump is likely a once in a lifetime guy who may very well, after he is gone, and years of have passed, done us all a great dead by both acting like an idiot and also for revealing the corruption from within.

[3rdPersonPlural]

[(lifelong R)
I like Pete and Amy the most, not sure I understand Yang's pitch as yet.
There are aspects of Tulsi I like, but I'm not 'all in' on her like some on here.
I'd be fine with Kamala, serious person, not a flamer.
I'd be disappointed by Biden, but put up with it for 4 years if that's what it takes.
I'd be semi-horrified by Bernie or Warren...

But a 'piece of wood' gets my vote over Trump. Including the flamers.

I, too, am a lifelong r. Both of my parents, and a brother, have been elected to school boards as Republicans. My values and convictions have not changes a whit since I was cheering for Reagan at the beginning of the '80's. Maybe I've learned to respect those whose circumstances weren't quite as accommodating as mine in our youth, but I still believe in measuring twice and cutting once, fiscal responsibility, cautious welfare, and a well oiled diplomatic corps.

I like Yang and Pete, but I also like Warren. Not so much for her platform, but because she wants to nudge our nation in a direction it needs to go.

I can hear your sphincter clamping as you read "Warren". Let me explain.

She's a wonk. I'm a nerd. You, my dear man, are an intellectual. We all see.......the same mega problems. I don't need to (or care to) list these.

I want health care to be a utility. Generally available and regulated. I spent 8 months in and out of a Santa Barbara Oncology shop a few years ago, and saw several 'less fortunate' people shown the door in tears. Yes, I'll pay more taxes not to ever have to see that again. Lots more taxes. As long as the program is administered free of political intervention. Yes, we can do that.

I want to see K Street neutered. There's only 500 or so people who benefit from K Street, and the rest of us either play ball or suffer the consequences. By 'play ball', I mean bribe legislators. This is blatant and bad. The Constitution does not make room for purchasing votes or support. Nor should we.

I want people who can't spend or gift or donate all of their income every month to pay more tax than a family living off of a bunch of minimum wage jobs. I want that tax premium to go to a trust fund for the less fortunate, and not cooler weapons or nation building. I want that to be explicit.

I don't have a problem with hardworking immigrants. I have a problem with criminal immigrants, as well as violent criminal citizens.

This, as far as I'm concerned, is the attitude of old school Republicans. The few dozen of us left. Warren will be able to get just a handful of her initiatives accomplished, and hopefully she stays wonky and realizes that she'll need bipartisan help. Hopefully the R's will realize that working with her won't crater their career.

Hopefully........

[wahoomurf]

This DeGenova chap obviously feels the United States of America is run by a de-facto KING. He said so on FOX NEWS. I'm pretty sure regicide must include the assassination of an actual KING.

Also appearing with that individual on the FOX NEWS show was someone named Rudy Giuliani. You remember him. He claimed the Salem Witch trials were fairer than the current congressional inquiries. Thank Yahweh the U.S. Constitution not written until 90 or so years AFTER the Salem Witches were over. Only 20 were executed...none were burned at the stake. If witchcraft was considered a treasonous act, I bet the BUTCHER'S BILL would have been higher.

Perhaps both DeGenova and Giuliani should take a page out of Trey Gowdy's book and take a closer look at the U.S. Constitution.

https://crooksandliars.com/2019/10/joe- ... p-regicide

[seacoaster]

[(lifelong R)
I like Pete and Amy the most, not sure I understand Yang's pitch as yet.
There are aspects of Tulsi I like, but I'm not 'all in' on her like some on here.
I'd be fine with Kamala, serious person, not a flamer.
I'd be disappointed by Biden, but put up with it for 4 years if that's what it takes.
I'd be semi-horrified by Bernie or Warren...

But a 'piece of wood' gets my vote over Trump. Including the flamers.

I, too, am a lifelong r. Both of my parents, and a brother, have been elected to school boards as Republicans. My values and convictions have not changes a whit since I was cheering for Reagan at the beginning of the '80's. Maybe I've learned to respect those whose circumstances weren't quite as accommodating as mine in our youth, but I still believe in measuring twice and cutting once, fiscal responsibility, cautious welfare, and a well oiled diplomatic corps.

I like Yang and Pete, but I also like Warren. Not so much for her platform, but because she wants to nudge our nation in a direction it needs to go.

I can hear your sphincter clamping as you read "Warren". Let me explain.

She's a wonk. I'm a nerd. You, my dear man, are an intellectual. We all see.......the same mega problems. I don't need to (or care to) list these.

I want health care to be a utility. Generally available and regulated. I spent 8 months in and out of a Santa Barbara Oncology shop a few years ago, and saw several 'less fortunate' people shown the door in tears. Yes, I'll pay more taxes not to ever have to see that again. Lots more taxes. As long as the program is administered free of political intervention. Yes, we can do that.

I want to see K Street neutered. There's only 500 or so people who benefit from K Street, and the rest of us either play ball or suffer the consequences. By 'play ball', I mean bribe legislators. This is blatant and bad. The Constitution does not make room for purchasing votes or support. Nor should we.

I want people who can't spend or gift or donate all of their income every month to pay more tax than a family living off of a bunch of minimum wage jobs. I want that tax premium to go to a trust fund for the less fortunate, and not cooler weapons or nation building. I want that to be explicit.

I don't have a problem with hardworking immigrants. I have a problem with criminal immigrants, as well as violent criminal citizens.

This, as far as I'm concerned, is the attitude of old school Republicans. The few dozen of us left. Warren will be able to get just a handful of her initiatives accomplished, and hopefully she stays wonky and realizes that she'll need bipartisan help. Hopefully the R's will realize that working with her won't crater their career.

Hopefully........

Great exchange. Thanks gents.

[seacoaster]

From Politico, former prosecutor Mariotti on the WH Counsel's crazy letter:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... nal-229838

"The administration followed up with a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi signed by White House counsel Pat Cipollone, which blasted the impeachment inquiry as “illegitimate” and an “unconstitutional” effort to “overturn the democratic process.” The letter declares that the administration “cannot participate” in the impeachment inquiry as a result. Calling the constitutional process of impeachment “unconstitutional” is a brazen attempt to persuade the public that reality is not what it actually is—that up is down and black is white. Call it the “alternative facts” school of legal reasoning.

While the letter is signed by a lawyer and occasionally uses legal terms, such as “due process,” it is a political document, not a legal one. The complaints that the administration has with the impeachment inquiry are not legal reasons that would excuse a failure to comply with the inquiry. Trump is not going to court. He is not claiming privilege. He has simply declared that the usual rules don’t apply to him.

That is very different than taking advantage of legal procedure to delay by claiming privilege or filing cases in court. Using legal means to cause delay can frustrate the process, but it is not a rejection of the process. In fact, it is often key to a zealous defense that is essential to our adversarial legal system. Whenever you file your tax return, you concede that you have a legal obligation to pay taxes. Asking for an extension or claiming an unwarranted deduction is very different from refusing to file a return altogether because you believe the U.S. government is illegitimate. “Tax protesters” who do so are routinely prosecuted and sent to prison.

By declaring impeachment “illegitimate,” Trump seeks to delegitimize the only mechanism by which he can be punished for wrongful behavior while in office. Of all the unprecedented things Trump has done, this has the potential to be the most damaging.

The Justice Department has long taken the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The reasoning behind the Justice Department’s policy is that impeachment is the constitutional remedy for presidential wrongdoing and that impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. In a recent lawsuit he filed to block the Manhattan district attorney from examining his taxes, Trump pushed this theory to the breaking point. Trump asserted that not only is he safe from indictment, he cannot even be investigated while in office.

The assumption underlying all of those arguments is that impeachment is the remedy for presidential wrongdoing. Trump’s move on Tuesday aims to take that singular remedy off the table. If he succeeds—if impeachment is delegitimized and ignored—then Trump, and future presidents, will be truly above the law.

Both parties have publicly opposed this unconstitutional expansion of presidential power in the past. Not so long ago, when Republicans were arguing for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, they cited President Richard Nixon’s defiance of congressional oversight as a significant justification for his impeachment. Lindsey Graham, then a congressman from South Carolina, made a cogent case for why that article of impeachment was necessary against Nixon and why it was warranted for Clinton. But unless 20 Senate Republicans vote to remove Trump, he will remain in office and his noncompliance with Congress will be unpunished.

Going to the courts could eventually result in a court decision that would declare Trump obligated to comply with subpoenas from the impeachment inquiry, but that legal battle could take many months to play out. After all, House Democrats are still waiting for evidence from the Mueller investigation, which was completed in March.

It’s hard to believe Democrats will wait that long to impeach Trump, given that the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary are right around the corner. They will likely press forward with the considerable evidence they already have, which means that by the time the legal process plays out, lawsuits to enforce subpoenas from this impeachment inquiry would likely be moot. That’s why Trump is doing what he’s doing.

The term “constitutional crisis” has been thrown around often during the Trump presidency, usually in relation to problematic actions by Trump that don’t quite fit the definition of that term. But we have reached a constitutional crisis when the president of the United States does not recognize the House’s authority to exercise the “sole Power of Impeachment” granted to it by the Constitution, ignoring its subpoenas because he knows he won’t face any consequence for doing so. That precedent is dangerous. One can easily imagine a situation in which a future president’s refusal to provide evidence to Congress prevents a legitimate impeachment inquiry from proceeding. What would have happened if Trump had stonewalled from the beginning and didn’t release the summary of the phone call or whistleblower complaint?

If Trump evades removal from office and convinces Republicans that he can ignore impeachment by delegitimizing the process, one wonders what other constitutional provisions he will decide to ignore next. A Trump second term, unconstrained by congressional appropriations or oversight, could alter the scope of presidential power forever."

[seacoaster]

“Trey” Gowdy joins the Trump legal team:

“The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."

But that was 2012. Does anyone in South Carolina politics have a spine?

[runrussellrun]

some thoughts on impeachment:

You are fine with Obama withholding funds until the Ukraine AG was fired? Joe said, 'just ask the President, he'll tell you the same thing"....

.....none of this bothers you on the pretend liberal prairie? Pure league of bush.

[MDlaxfan76]

[(lifelong R)
I like Pete and Amy the most, not sure I understand Yang's pitch as yet.
There are aspects of Tulsi I like, but I'm not 'all in' on her like some on here.
I'd be fine with Kamala, serious person, not a flamer.
I'd be disappointed by Biden, but put up with it for 4 years if that's what it takes.
I'd be semi-horrified by Bernie or Warren...

But a 'piece of wood' gets my vote over Trump. Including the flamers.

I, too, am a lifelong r. Both of my parents, and a brother, have been elected to school boards as Republicans. My values and convictions have not changes a whit since I was cheering for Reagan at the beginning of the '80's. Maybe I've learned to respect those whose circumstances weren't quite as accommodating as mine in our youth, but I still believe in measuring twice and cutting once, fiscal responsibility, cautious welfare, and a well oiled diplomatic corps.

I like Yang and Pete, but I also like Warren. Not so much for her platform, but because she wants to nudge our nation in a direction it needs to go.

I can hear your sphincter clamping as you read "Warren". Let me explain.

She's a wonk. I'm a nerd. You, my dear man, are an intellectual. We all see.......the same mega problems. I don't need to (or care to) list these.

I want health care to be a utility. Generally available and regulated. I spent 8 months in and out of a Santa Barbara Oncology shop a few years ago, and saw several 'less fortunate' people shown the door in tears. Yes, I'll pay more taxes not to ever have to see that again. Lots more taxes. As long as the program is administered free of political intervention. Yes, we can do that.

I want to see K Street neutered. There's only 500 or so people who benefit from K Street, and the rest of us either play ball or suffer the consequences. By 'play ball', I mean bribe legislators. This is blatant and bad. The Constitution does not make room for purchasing votes or support. Nor should we.

I want people who can't spend or gift or donate all of their income every month to pay more tax than a family living off of a bunch of minimum wage jobs. I want that tax premium to go to a trust fund for the less fortunate, and not cooler weapons or nation building. I want that to be explicit.

I don't have a problem with hardworking immigrants. I have a problem with criminal immigrants, as well as violent criminal citizens.

This, as far as I'm concerned, is the attitude of old school Republicans. The few dozen of us left. Warren will be able to get just a handful of her initiatives accomplished, and hopefully she stays wonky and realizes that she'll need bipartisan help. Hopefully the R's will realize that working with her won't crater their career.

Hopefully........

Very well said.
Re Warren, I see and agree with your rationale, under the proposition that there would be some restraint.

Part of my concern about the current era is the potential destruction of institutional restraints, the notion that raw power alone justifies the breaking of norms and precedents. If there is a broad, sweeping repudiation of the GOP, not simply Trumpism, and the Dems gain deep control of all critical levers of power, will they go too far?

Now, my hope, like yours I believe, is that Dems like Warren actually believe in those institutional norms and will try to reassert their importance again.

On the other hand, their righteous passion for changing the direction of the country, particularly with regard to income inequality, could well lead to over reach, too much too fast. This issue definitely needs to be addressed, as does health care, so directionally I'm ok with moving that way...but I want it to be carefully done.

I'm also concerned about that sweeping repudiation of the GOP actually removing the most moderate, most respectable and measured of the GOP Representatives and Senators and Governors, not the jerks and far right wing nut jobs.

However, when I look at the importance of repudiating Trumpism, it's not a close call.

[MDlaxfan76]

some thoughts on impeachment:

You are fine with Obama withholding funds until the Ukraine AG was fired? Joe said, 'just ask the President, he'll tell you the same thing"....

.....none of this bothers you on the pretend liberal prairie? Pure league of bush.

Really? What news sources do you actually read/watch?

Both R's and D's in the Senate wanted this former AG removed, corruption rooted out. So did the EU.
The former AG was NOT doing the job of rooting out corruption.

None of them were trying to help out Hunter Biden or any other personal interest.

[MDlaxfan76]

This DeGenova chap obviously feels the United States of America is run by a de-facto KING. He said so on FOX NEWS. I'm pretty sure regicide must include the assassination of an actual KING.

Also appearing with that individual on the FOX NEWS show was someone named Rudy Giuliani. You remember him. He claimed the Salem Witch trials were fairer than the current congressional inquiries. Thank Yahweh the U.S. Constitution not written until 90 or so years AFTER the Salem Witches were over. Only 20 were executed...none were burned at the stake. If witchcraft was considered a treasonous act, I bet the BUTCHER'S BILL would have been higher.

Perhaps both DeGenova and Giuliani should take a page out of Trey Gowdy's book and take a closer look at the U.S. Constitution.

https://crooksandliars.com/2019/10/joe- ... p-regicide

The yowling indeed has grown to new levels of extreme hyperbole.

Why?
Well, Fox News reports that a majority of Americans now support both Impeachment and Removal.

Freaking the Trumpists out big time.

[Peter Brown]

Part of my concern about the current era is the potential destruction of institutional restraints, the notion that raw power alone justifies the breaking of norms and precedents.

Is the above perhaps a bit hyperbolic, MDLAxfan? I mean, so far as I can tell by this board alone, the First Amendment is still going strong; I believe institutions are strong and fast. But there is indeed a warning sign ahead, but imo it is not DJT.

Unrestrained Leftism writ large has been this world's most destructive force, bar none; Guys like Clinton and Obama were not that, they ultimately are capitalists. Warren is a much different person. Assuming you know a few folks in Massachusetts, ask them their opinion of what her core beliefs are. It's not pretty. Anyone suggesting a wealth tax imo is about as far opposed to what has caused this to be the world's greatest country as to be obscene. Be very careful playing tip toe with sharks.

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/30/20691246/ ... -unpopular

That said, I am curious about what precisely Donald Trump has done to any of you to warrant the excessive return fire? Can you detail any specific act of his which has directly impacted you, your family, your health, or your net worth? Is it mostly the general tone of his character and utterances, which you can (justly) claim leads to a coarsening of the national dialogue, or is it legislation he championed, saw through Congress, and happily signed into law? Has he caused more deaths of enlisted members? Has he tasked any federal police to come into your town, your home! even, and arrested anyone you personally know?

I am genuinely curious because as I believe what we saw with Obama, for some reason, many partisans feast on a growing chatterbox of confirmation bias, raising decibel levels to where they literally can no longer rationally hear (or see!) what's good about their lives any more. A leader obviously would seek to squelch that rising noise, by reaching out and seeking common ground, and of course perception can become reality. I am not sure Trump is all that, to his detriment. I am just not sure what he has done other than tweet to cause such angst among some here...

Anyway, would love to know the particulars as to why some here seem so aggrieved by Trump.

[Farfromgeneva]

[(lifelong R)
I like Pete and Amy the most, not sure I understand Yang's pitch as yet.
There are aspects of Tulsi I like, but I'm not 'all in' on her like some on here.
I'd be fine with Kamala, serious person, not a flamer.
I'd be disappointed by Biden, but put up with it for 4 years if that's what it takes.
I'd be semi-horrified by Bernie or Warren...

But a 'piece of wood' gets my vote over Trump. Including the flamers.

I, too, am a lifelong r. Both of my parents, and a brother, have been elected to school boards as Republicans. My values and convictions have not changes a whit since I was cheering for Reagan at the beginning of the '80's. Maybe I've learned to respect those whose circumstances weren't quite as accommodating as mine in our youth, but I still believe in measuring twice and cutting once, fiscal responsibility, cautious welfare, and a well oiled diplomatic corps.

I like Yang and Pete, but I also like Warren. Not so much for her platform, but because she wants to nudge our nation in a direction it needs to go.

I can hear your sphincter clamping as you read "Warren". Let me explain.

She's a wonk. I'm a nerd. You, my dear man, are an intellectual. We all see.......the same mega problems. I don't need to (or care to) list these.

I want health care to be a utility. Generally available and regulated. I spent 8 months in and out of a Santa Barbara Oncology shop a few years ago, and saw several 'less fortunate' people shown the door in tears. Yes, I'll pay more taxes not to ever have to see that again. Lots more taxes. As long as the program is administered free of political intervention. Yes, we can do that.

I want to see K Street neutered. There's only 500 or so people who benefit from K Street, and the rest of us either play ball or suffer the consequences. By 'play ball', I mean bribe legislators. This is blatant and bad. The Constitution does not make room for purchasing votes or support. Nor should we.

I want people who can't spend or gift or donate all of their income every month to pay more tax than a family living off of a bunch of minimum wage jobs. I want that tax premium to go to a trust fund for the less fortunate, and not cooler weapons or nation building. I want that to be explicit.

I don't have a problem with hardworking immigrants. I have a problem with criminal immigrants, as well as violent criminal citizens.

This, as far as I'm concerned, is the attitude of old school Republicans. The few dozen of us left. Warren will be able to get just a handful of her initiatives accomplished, and hopefully she stays wonky and realizes that she'll need bipartisan help. Hopefully the R's will realize that working with her won't crater their career.

Hopefully........

Very well said.
Re Warren, I see and agree with your rationale, under the proposition that there would be some restraint.

Part of my concern about the current era is the potential destruction of institutional restraints, the notion that raw power alone justifies the breaking of norms and precedents. If there is a broad, sweeping repudiation of the GOP, not simply Trumpism, and the Dems gain deep control of all critical levers of power, will they go too far?

Now, my hope, like yours I believe, is that Dems like Warren actually believe in those institutional norms and will try to reassert their importance again.

On the other hand, their righteous passion for changing the direction of the country, particularly with regard to income inequality, could well lead to over reach, too much too fast. This issue definitely needs to be addressed, as does health care, so directionally I'm ok with moving that way...but I want it to be carefully done.

I'm also concerned about that sweeping repudiation of the GOP actually removing the most moderate, most respectable and measured of the GOP Representatives and Senators and Governors, not the jerks and far right wing nut jobs.

However, when I look at the importance of repudiating Trumpism, it's not a close call.

I’ve been making this point w respect to 72, Doc and maybe some others that refer to party of stupid and other vitriol. Awfully convenient to attempt to destroy any opposition to their own side and then let them have Carte blanche to behave no different than trump (see nuclear option or even after winning Obama, legitimately annoyed but sill improperly saying “get over it we won”, not crapping I’m the guy entirely but that was an ugly moment for him). There always has to be opposition philosophically, just a better way than what we have now.

On overreach I think we saw it w Warren on the CFPB and even her doubling down on being Native American with that stupid genealogy report (not understanding that genetics don’t but rather the Dawes roll, define Native American) and just the general use of angle and dishonesty to get ahead. I’ve seen enough to know power would corrupt her in her own way too, out on that. Generic and useless Biden would be better.

[Farfromgeneva]

Part of my concern about the current era is the potential destruction of institutional restraints, the notion that raw power alone justifies the breaking of norms and precedents.

Is the above perhaps a bit hyperbolic, MDLAxfan? I mean, so far as I can tell by this board alone, the First Amendment is still going strong; I believe institutions are strong and fast. But there is indeed a warning sign ahead, but imo it is not DJT.

Unrestrained Leftism writ large has been this world's most destructive force, bar none; Guys like Clinton and Obama were not that, they ultimately are capitalists. Warren is a much different person. Assuming you know a few folks in Massachusetts, ask them their opinion of what her core beliefs are. It's not pretty. Anyone suggesting a wealth tax imo is about as far opposed to what has caused this to be the world's greatest country as to be obscene. Be very careful playing tip toe with sharks.

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/30/20691246/ ... -unpopular

That said, I am curious about what precisely Donald Trump has done to any of you to warrant the excessive return fire? Can you detail any specific act of his which has directly impacted you, your family, your health, or your net worth? Is it mostly the general tone of his character and utterances, which you can (justly) claim leads to a coarsening of the national dialogue, or is it legislation he championed, saw through Congress, and happily signed into law? Has he caused more deaths of enlisted members? Has he tasked any federal police to come into your town, your home! even, and arrested anyone you personally know?

I am genuinely curious because as I believe what we saw with Obama, for some reason, many partisans feast on a growing chatterbox of confirmation bias, raising decibel levels to where they literally can no longer rationally hear (or see!) what's good about their lives any more. A leader obviously would seek to squelch that rising noise, by reaching out and seeking common ground, and of course perception can become reality. I am not sure Trump is all that, to his detriment. I am just not sure what he has done other than tweet to cause such angst among some here...

Anyway, would love to know the particulars as to why some here seem so aggrieved by Trump.

He’s attacking the credibility of integral institutions which leads to our dollars full faith and credit being weakened. They days we aren’t the fiat currency reserve for the country is the day I start checking out nice Latin American or Mediterranean countries for my retirement

[MDlaxfan76]

Part of my concern about the current era is the potential destruction of institutional restraints, the notion that raw power alone justifies the breaking of norms and precedents.

Is the above perhaps a bit hyperbolic, MDLAxfan? I mean, so far as I can tell by this board alone, the First Amendment is still going strong; I believe institutions are strong and fast. But there is indeed a warning sign ahead, but imo it is not DJT.

Unrestrained Leftism writ large has been this world's most destructive force, bar none; Guys like Clinton and Obama were not that, they ultimately are capitalists. Warren is a much different person. Assuming you know a few folks in Massachusetts, ask them their opinion of what her core beliefs are. It's not pretty. Anyone suggesting a wealth tax imo is about as far opposed to what has caused this to be the world's greatest country as to be obscene. Be very careful playing tip toe with sharks.

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/30/20691246/ ... -unpopular

That said, I am curious about what precisely Donald Trump has done to any of you to warrant the excessive return fire? Can you detail any specific act of his which has directly impacted you, your family, your health, or your net worth? Is it mostly the general tone of his character and utterances, which you can (justly) claim leads to a coarsening of the national dialogue, or is it legislation he championed, saw through Congress, and happily signed into law? Has he caused more deaths of enlisted members? Has he tasked any federal police to come into your town, your home! even, and arrested anyone you personally know?

I am genuinely curious because as I believe what we saw with Obama, for some reason, many partisans feast on a growing chatterbox of confirmation bias, raising decibel levels to where they literally can no longer rationally hear (or see!) what's good about their lives any more. A leader obviously would seek to squelch that rising noise, by reaching out and seeking common ground, and of course perception can become reality. I am not sure Trump is all that, to his detriment. I am just not sure what he has done other than tweet to cause such angst among some here...

Anyway, would love to know the particulars as to why some here seem so aggrieved by Trump.

PB, let me first address the 'logic' of your question summarized as "what has Der Leader done to hurt you or your family personally?"

You could have asked the same question of most Germans under Hitler's early years. Indeed, most Germans 'benefited' or at least were not 'hurt' under early fascism. Emphasis on "most Germans".

My concern is indeed the rise of acceptance of the authoritarian, strong man 'leader', no matter what damage is done to our Constitutional democracy and norms of civil behavior.

I can give you a long recitation of his, and his Administration's, direct acts damaging our institutions, or system of checks and balances, as well as the destruction of the trust we need to be effective on the world stage as the the beacon of a free democracy.

The immediate threat of authoritarianism is coming from the Trumpist hard right, but I am concerned about the eventual potential rise of the authoritarian left (no, we haven't remotely seen such as yet here in America). However, precedents are being set.

I'm a capitalist. I believe in the moral good of this system in lifting many out of poverty.
That does not make me a foe of regulatory restraint or taxation or social safety nets.

Even the most extreme of Warren's policy proposals, ala the 'wealth tax', could well fit within our capitalist system.
I believe that people will continue to strive to achieve ever greater 'success' as measured in wealth accumulation, regardless of whether a small portion is taxed each year once accumulated. We will continue to behave capitalistically.

Now, I do worry about far left authoritarianism going way beyond Warren's proposals.

But that risk is greatly exacerbated by Trumpism becoming normalized.

[MDlaxfan76]

[(lifelong R)
I like Pete and Amy the most, not sure I understand Yang's pitch as yet.
There are aspects of Tulsi I like, but I'm not 'all in' on her like some on here.
I'd be fine with Kamala, serious person, not a flamer.
I'd be disappointed by Biden, but put up with it for 4 years if that's what it takes.
I'd be semi-horrified by Bernie or Warren...

But a 'piece of wood' gets my vote over Trump. Including the flamers.

I, too, am a lifelong r. Both of my parents, and a brother, have been elected to school boards as Republicans. My values and convictions have not changes a whit since I was cheering for Reagan at the beginning of the '80's. Maybe I've learned to respect those whose circumstances weren't quite as accommodating as mine in our youth, but I still believe in measuring twice and cutting once, fiscal responsibility, cautious welfare, and a well oiled diplomatic corps.

I like Yang and Pete, but I also like Warren. Not so much for her platform, but because she wants to nudge our nation in a direction it needs to go.

I can hear your sphincter clamping as you read "Warren". Let me explain.

She's a wonk. I'm a nerd. You, my dear man, are an intellectual. We all see.......the same mega problems. I don't need to (or care to) list these.

I want health care to be a utility. Generally available and regulated. I spent 8 months in and out of a Santa Barbara Oncology shop a few years ago, and saw several 'less fortunate' people shown the door in tears. Yes, I'll pay more taxes not to ever have to see that again. Lots more taxes. As long as the program is administered free of political intervention. Yes, we can do that.

I want to see K Street neutered. There's only 500 or so people who benefit from K Street, and the rest of us either play ball or suffer the consequences. By 'play ball', I mean bribe legislators. This is blatant and bad. The Constitution does not make room for purchasing votes or support. Nor should we.

I want people who can't spend or gift or donate all of their income every month to pay more tax than a family living off of a bunch of minimum wage jobs. I want that tax premium to go to a trust fund for the less fortunate, and not cooler weapons or nation building. I want that to be explicit.

I don't have a problem with hardworking immigrants. I have a problem with criminal immigrants, as well as violent criminal citizens.

This, as far as I'm concerned, is the attitude of old school Republicans. The few dozen of us left. Warren will be able to get just a handful of her initiatives accomplished, and hopefully she stays wonky and realizes that she'll need bipartisan help. Hopefully the R's will realize that working with her won't crater their career.

Hopefully........

Very well said.
Re Warren, I see and agree with your rationale, under the proposition that there would be some restraint.

Part of my concern about the current era is the potential destruction of institutional restraints, the notion that raw power alone justifies the breaking of norms and precedents. If there is a broad, sweeping repudiation of the GOP, not simply Trumpism, and the Dems gain deep control of all critical levers of power, will they go too far?

Now, my hope, like yours I believe, is that Dems like Warren actually believe in those institutional norms and will try to reassert their importance again.

On the other hand, their righteous passion for changing the direction of the country, particularly with regard to income inequality, could well lead to over reach, too much too fast. This issue definitely needs to be addressed, as does health care, so directionally I'm ok with moving that way...but I want it to be carefully done.

I'm also concerned about that sweeping repudiation of the GOP actually removing the most moderate, most respectable and measured of the GOP Representatives and Senators and Governors, not the jerks and far right wing nut jobs.

However, when I look at the importance of repudiating Trumpism, it's not a close call.

I’ve been making this point w respect to 72, Doc and maybe some others that refer to party of stupid and other vitriol. Awfully convenient to attempt to destroy any opposition to their own side and then let them have Carte blanche to behave no different than trump (see nuclear option or even after winning Obama, legitimately annoyed but sill improperly saying “get over it we won”, not crapping I’m the guy entirely but that was an ugly moment for him). There always has to be opposition philosophically, just a better way than what we have now.

On overreach I think we saw it w Warren on the CFPB and even her doubling down on being Native American with that stupid genealogy report (not understanding that genetics don’t but rather the Dawes roll, define Native American) and just the general use of angle and dishonesty to get ahead. I’ve seen enough to know power would corrupt her in her own way too, out on that. Generic and useless Biden would be better.

I, too, can find a number of reasons to not prefer Warren.
However, none of those reasons come close in comparison to Trump.

I sure would rather a choice like Kasich.

[Farfromgeneva]

Part of my concern about the current era is the potential destruction of institutional restraints, the notion that raw power alone justifies the breaking of norms and precedents.

Is the above perhaps a bit hyperbolic, MDLAxfan? I mean, so far as I can tell by this board alone, the First Amendment is still going strong; I believe institutions are strong and fast. But there is indeed a warning sign ahead, but imo it is not DJT.

Unrestrained Leftism writ large has been this world's most destructive force, bar none; Guys like Clinton and Obama were not that, they ultimately are capitalists. Warren is a much different person. Assuming you know a few folks in Massachusetts, ask them their opinion of what her core beliefs are. It's not pretty. Anyone suggesting a wealth tax imo is about as far opposed to what has caused this to be the world's greatest country as to be obscene. Be very careful playing tip toe with sharks.

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/30/20691246/ ... -unpopular

That said, I am curious about what precisely Donald Trump has done to any of you to warrant the excessive return fire? Can you detail any specific act of his which has directly impacted you, your family, your health, or your net worth? Is it mostly the general tone of his character and utterances, which you can (justly) claim leads to a coarsening of the national dialogue, or is it legislation he championed, saw through Congress, and happily signed into law? Has he caused more deaths of enlisted members? Has he tasked any federal police to come into your town, your home! even, and arrested anyone you personally know?

I am genuinely curious because as I believe what we saw with Obama, for some reason, many partisans feast on a growing chatterbox of confirmation bias, raising decibel levels to where they literally can no longer rationally hear (or see!) what's good about their lives any more. A leader obviously would seek to squelch that rising noise, by reaching out and seeking common ground, and of course perception can become reality. I am not sure Trump is all that, to his detriment. I am just not sure what he has done other than tweet to cause such angst among some here...

Anyway, would love to know the particulars as to why some here seem so aggrieved by Trump.

PB, let me first address the 'logic' of your question summarized as "what has Der Leader done to hurt you or your family personally?"

You could have asked the same question of most Germans under Hitler's early years. Indeed, most Germans 'benefited' or at least were not 'hurt' under early fascism. Emphasis on "most Germans".

My concern is indeed the rise of acceptance of the authoritarian, strong man 'leader', no matter what damage is done to our Constitutional democracy and norms of civil behavior.

I can give you a long recitation of his, and his Administration's, direct acts damaging our institutions, or system of checks and balances, as well as the destruction of the trust we need to be effective on the world stage as the the beacon of a free democracy.

The immediate threat of authoritarianism is coming from the Trumpist hard right, but I am concerned about the eventual potential rise of the authoritarian left (no, we haven't remotely seen such as yet here in America). However, precedents are being set.

I'm a capitalist. I believe in the moral good of this system in lifting many out of poverty.
That does not make me a foe of regulatory restraint or taxation or social safety nets.

Even the most extreme of Warren's policy proposals, ala the 'wealth tax', could well fit within our capitalist system.
I believe that people will continue to strive to achieve ever greater 'success' as measured in wealth accumulation, regardless of whether a small portion is taxed each year once accumulated. We will continue to behave capitalistically.

Now, I do worry about far left authoritarianism going way beyond Warren's proposals.

But that risk is greatly exacerbated by Trumpism becoming normalized.

Interesting bit on wealth tax in this podcast

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/p ... 0445251949

[Peter Brown]

PB, let me first address the 'logic' of your question summarized as "what has Der Leader done to hurt you or your family personally?"

You could have asked the same question of most Germans under Hitler's early years. Indeed, most Germans 'benefited' or at least were not 'hurt' under early fascism. Emphasis on "most Germans".

My concern is indeed the rise of acceptance of the authoritarian, strong man 'leader', no matter what damage is done to our Constitutional democracy and norms of civil behavior.

Are you suggesting that an 'authoritarian' would be in favor of his citizens having the unassailable right to bear arms (our 2nd Amendment)? Because Trump is a fairly reliable supporter of the 2nd Amendment.

My other question would be surrounding the Hitler analogy. Hitler was influenced at a very early age by Georg Ritter von Schönerer and Karl Lueger. Wouldn't it be consistent to assume that in no conceivable universe would Trump allow his eldest daughter to not simply marry a Jew but to actually convert to that religion as well? If your analogy is appropriate, that is.

[Peter Brown]

Even the most extreme of Warren's policy proposals, ala the 'wealth tax', could well fit within our capitalist system.
I believe that people will continue to strive to achieve ever greater 'success' as measured in wealth accumulation, regardless of whether a small portion is taxed each year once accumulated. We will continue to behave capitalistically.

Until we don't.

No tax in history, unless you can point out the exception, has ever gone down from the first level.

Congress adopted the income tax in 1913, levying a 1% tax on net personal incomes above $3,000, with a 6% surtax on incomes above $500,000. By 1918, the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77%.

If you believe that American politicians will hold the line at a 1% wealth tax (the French are retreating from it now), you might consider historical facts regarding taxes.

[jhu72]

PB, let me first address the 'logic' of your question summarized as "what has Der Leader done to hurt you or your family personally?"

You could have asked the same question of most Germans under Hitler's early years. Indeed, most Germans 'benefited' or at least were not 'hurt' under early fascism. Emphasis on "most Germans".

My concern is indeed the rise of acceptance of the authoritarian, strong man 'leader', no matter what damage is done to our Constitutional democracy and norms of civil behavior.

Are you suggesting that an 'authoritarian' would be in favor of his citizens having the unassailable right to bear arms (our 2nd Amendment)? Because Trump is a fairly reliable supporter of the 2nd Amendment.

My other question would be surrounding the Hitler analogy. Hitler was influenced at a very early age by Georg Ritter von Schönerer and Karl Lueger. Wouldn't it be consistent to assume that in no conceivable universe would Trump allow his eldest daughter to not simply marry a Jew but to actually convert to that religion as well? If your analogy is appropriate, that is.

How naïve can you be? Trump, for years was anti-gun, pro-regulation. He is a con man - pure and simple. Period - full stop.