g-man posted:
napacat posted:

our current politicians don’t do this or seem to care to resolve our issues.  Just demogouge and pander.  If you watch Clinton, Obama and Schumer talk about illegal immigration a few years ago and now listen today...you see what is wrong with our politicians.

"Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship -- a path that includes passing a background check, paying taxes and a meaningful penalty, learning English, and going to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally.

And real reform means fixing the legal immigration system to cut waiting periods and attract the highly-skilled entrepreneurs and engineers that will help create jobs and grow our economy.”

vs

"Democrats are the problem. They don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can’t win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!"

I'll let you guess which one sounds like an actual plan, and which one shows what's wrong with our politicians nowadays.

GMan....I’m on board with both statements.  First one is preferred.

napacat posted:
g-man posted:
napacat posted:

our current politicians don’t do this or seem to care to resolve our issues.  Just demogouge and pander.  If you watch Clinton, Obama and Schumer talk about illegal immigration a few years ago and now listen today...you see what is wrong with our politicians.

"Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship -- a path that includes passing a background check, paying taxes and a meaningful penalty, learning English, and going to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally.

And real reform means fixing the legal immigration system to cut waiting periods and attract the highly-skilled entrepreneurs and engineers that will help create jobs and grow our economy.”

vs

"Democrats are the problem. They don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can’t win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!"

I'll let you guess which one sounds like an actual plan, and which one shows what's wrong with our politicians nowadays.

GMan....I’m on board with both statements.  First one is preferred.

i hope you realize that the first one is Obama right?

Vs Trump, who is literally doing exactly what you say you are against, demagogue and pander.  Because i dont see how anyone can broadly paint 48% of all eligible voters in this country as "don't care about crime and want illegal mexicans infesting our country" not engaging in 

demagogue:  a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power

 

Sometimes i dont know if you're purposely trolling or truly having a conversation. 

winetarelli posted:

Violated campaign finance laws to influence election at direction of candidate. 

 

Here we go...

And Manafort convicted on 8 counts with maximum terms that would mean life in jail.  Mistrials on the other 10 counts.  No acquittals.  

And Republicans will probably still rally around Trump even as it becomes clearer and clearer that he's as dirty as the rest of them......

winetarelli posted:

Violated campaign finance laws to influence election at direction of candidate. 

 

Here we go...

Of all the "good" news today, this is the big one.  I wonder what misdirection will be coming next from the WH.

Manafort has another trial coming up next months with much more connection to Trump/elections/Ukraine etc.  Should be very interesting.  I hope they get a more levelheaded judge in this case.  The VA judge in the first Manafort trial was an idiot.

 PH

People under Federal indictment:

First congressman to support Trump 

Second congressman to support Trump

 

People found or pleaded guilty to Federal crimes:

Foreign Policy Advisor to Trump Campaign 

National Security Advisor to Trump Presidency

Campaing Manager

Personal Lawyer

 

So.  Much.  Winning.

 

 

It's pretty sordid, that is for sure.  In addition to the President missing the classes on tariffs and their effects when he was at school at Wharton, he also missed the business ethics classes, if they had them back then.  He was probably out playing golf I guess.  I am not familiar with all of these federal criminal statutes, but I sure would not want someone (let alone my lawyer) saying that I told him to violate the law. That has a certain smell factor to it.

 

billhike posted:

I still don’t get a good feeling that all or any of it sticks to Cheeto to the point of removal. Damn I hope I’m wrong. 

You're not wrong, billhike.  Long way to go.  DOJ guidelines seem to indicate that a sitting "president," cannot be accused of a crime.  In the meantime, between Manafort, Cohen, McGahn and others, there will likely be more fun coming for the orange menace.  I look for some action regarding Don Jr. and Jared soon.  Unfortunately, the cost to our country for all this idiocy will take along time to remedy.

PH

purplehaze posted:
billhike posted:

I still don’t get a good feeling that all or any of it sticks to Cheeto to the point of removal. Damn I hope I’m wrong. 

You're not wrong, billhike.  Long way to go.  DOJ guidelines seem to indicate that a sitting "president," cannot be accused of a crime.  In the meantime, between Manafort, Cohen, McGahn and others, there will likely be more fun coming for the orange menace.  I look for some action regarding Don Jr. and Jared soon.  Unfortunately, the cost to our country for all this idiocy will take along time to remedy.

PH

But the cost of doing nothing is greater than the cost of doing nothing.

purplehaze posted:
billhike posted:

I still don’t get a good feeling that all or any of it sticks to Cheeto to the point of removal. Damn I hope I’m wrong. 

You're not wrong, billhike.  Long way to go.  DOJ guidelines seem to indicate that a sitting "president," cannot be accused of a crime.  In the meantime, between Manafort, Cohen, McGahn and others, there will likely be more fun coming for the orange menace.  I look for some action regarding Don Jr. and Jared soon.  Unfortunately, the cost to our country for all this idiocy will take along time to remedy.

PH

I have zero legal background outside of watching a lot of Law and Order, so I hope someone can explain more about a sitting President not being accused of a crime.  This is not directly related to any specific President, just in general. 

Hypothetically.....what if a sitting President shoots someone in cold blood?  He/she cannot be accused of a crime?  I am picking the absolute extreme just to highlight the question.  What level of crime would he/she have to commit to be accused? 

Now speaking specifically, since 45 wasn't the acting President at the time the campaign violations were committed, does that play a part in it as well? 

patespo1 posted:
purplehaze posted:
billhike posted:

I still don’t get a good feeling that all or any of it sticks to Cheeto to the point of removal. Damn I hope I’m wrong. 

You're not wrong, billhike.  Long way to go.  DOJ guidelines seem to indicate that a sitting "president," cannot be accused of a crime.  In the meantime, between Manafort, Cohen, McGahn and others, there will likely be more fun coming for the orange menace.  I look for some action regarding Don Jr. and Jared soon.  Unfortunately, the cost to our country for all this idiocy will take along time to remedy.

PH

I have zero legal background outside of watching a lot of Law and Order, so I hope someone can explain more about a sitting President not being accused of a crime.  This is not directly related to any specific President, just in general. 

Hypothetically.....what if a sitting President shoots someone in cold blood?  He/she cannot be accused of a crime?  I am picking the absolute extreme just to highlight the question.  What level of crime would he/she have to commit to be accused? 

Now speaking specifically, since 45 wasn't the acting President at the time the campaign violations were committed, does that play a part in it as well? 

Watching Law and Order still means you have zero legal background. (This is not a criticism of you....the show bears no relationship to reality).  My Cousin Vinny is much closer.

But, in any event, so far no sitting President has been indicted. Therefore, we don't know if an indictment would be quashed or not. There is no precedent. There are lots of opinions. People who support a current President say that the President cannot be indicted. People who dislike the current President say he can.  A good article on this can be found at:

https://www.theatlantic.com/po...l-indictment/560957/

irwin posted:
patespo1 posted:
purplehaze posted:
billhike posted:

I still don’t get a good feeling that all or any of it sticks to Cheeto to the point of removal. Damn I hope I’m wrong. 

You're not wrong, billhike.  Long way to go.  DOJ guidelines seem to indicate that a sitting "president," cannot be accused of a crime.  In the meantime, between Manafort, Cohen, McGahn and others, there will likely be more fun coming for the orange menace.  I look for some action regarding Don Jr. and Jared soon.  Unfortunately, the cost to our country for all this idiocy will take along time to remedy.

PH

I have zero legal background outside of watching a lot of Law and Order, so I hope someone can explain more about a sitting President not being accused of a crime.  This is not directly related to any specific President, just in general. 

Hypothetically.....what if a sitting President shoots someone in cold blood?  He/she cannot be accused of a crime?  I am picking the absolute extreme just to highlight the question.  What level of crime would he/she have to commit to be accused? 

Now speaking specifically, since 45 wasn't the acting President at the time the campaign violations were committed, does that play a part in it as well? 

Watching Law and Order still means you have zero legal background. (This is not a criticism of you....the show bears no relationship to reality).  My Cousin Vinny is much closer.

But, in any event, so far no sitting President has been indicted. Therefore, we don't know if an indictment would be quashed or not. There is no precedent. There are lots of opinions. People who support a current President say that the President cannot be indicted. People who dislike the current President say he can.  A good article on this can be found at:

https://www.theatlantic.com/po...l-indictment/560957/

The Law and Order comment was pure sarcasm, but I'm also glad to know that it isn't close to reality.

Thanks for the article, will read over later today.

irwin posted:
purplehaze posted:
billhike posted:

I still don’t get a good feeling that all or any of it sticks to Cheeto to the point of removal. Damn I hope I’m wrong. 

You're not wrong, billhike.  Long way to go.  DOJ guidelines seem to indicate that a sitting "president," cannot be accused of a crime.  In the meantime, between Manafort, Cohen, McGahn and others, there will likely be more fun coming for the orange menace.  I look for some action regarding Don Jr. and Jared soon.  Unfortunately, the cost to our country for all this idiocy will take along time to remedy.

PH

But the cost of doing nothing is greater than the cost of doing nothing.

Irwin: ???

Rothko posted:
irwin posted:
purplehaze posted:
billhike posted:

I still don’t get a good feeling that all or any of it sticks to Cheeto to the point of removal. Damn I hope I’m wrong. 

You're not wrong, billhike.  Long way to go.  DOJ guidelines seem to indicate that a sitting "president," cannot be accused of a crime.  In the meantime, between Manafort, Cohen, McGahn and others, there will likely be more fun coming for the orange menace.  I look for some action regarding Don Jr. and Jared soon.  Unfortunately, the cost to our country for all this idiocy will take along time to remedy.

PH

But the cost of doing nothing is greater than the cost of doing nothing.

Irwin: ???

I was wondering about that myself but assumed I was just dense. 

irwin posted:
purplehaze posted:
billhike posted:

I still don’t get a good feeling that all or any of it sticks to Cheeto to the point of removal. Damn I hope I’m wrong. 

You're not wrong, billhike.  Long way to go.  DOJ guidelines seem to indicate that a sitting "president," cannot be accused of a crime.  In the meantime, between Manafort, Cohen, McGahn and others, there will likely be more fun coming for the orange menace.  I look for some action regarding Don Jr. and Jared soon.  Unfortunately, the cost to our country for all this idiocy will take along time to remedy.

PH

But the cost of doing nothing is greater than the cost of doing nothing.

No argument, irwin.  I guess the question is, what to do... and when.  In a sane world the spineless Republican majority would immediately call for impeachment and proceed along those lines.  We all know that this isn't going to happen.  Dems are reluctant to talk impeachment now, and there are strategists who think that pushing for indictments might actually backfire in terms of the upcoming fall elections.  I think time will bring many more sordid details related to trump's behavior.  Frankly, I'm looking forward to watch him undergo death by a thousand cuts.  

PH

The problem is that so far everything that hasn’t been a death blow has made him stronger as it has just lowered the bar incrementally. The truth is while both can be serious Federal offenses Trump’s Presidency till not end early due to obstruction nor Federal election campaign violations.  It should, given the context. But it won’t. And I’m worried that by not ending his Presidency the bar will be so low that money laundering and conspiracy with a foreign adversary are suddenly open-ended questions. 

 

On the other hand, he’s lost his Twitter mojo. And the R party is beginning to look like one giant criminal conspiracy. So *maybe* the Ds win in November. But I’ve learned never to bet D. 

Heh... the bar is now so low it's actually underground.  Like a sewer line.  I hear you on the Ds, winetarelli.  Incredibly inept when it comes to elections.  If the Ds can't gain a majority in Congress this November, I'll start checking overseas real estate.  It's really gone b@ts#it crazy here.

PH

irwin posted:
patespo1 posted:
purplehaze posted:
billhike posted:

I still don’t get a good feeling that all or any of it sticks to Cheeto to the point of removal. Damn I hope I’m wrong. 

You're not wrong, billhike.  Long way to go.  DOJ guidelines seem to indicate that a sitting "president," cannot be accused of a crime.  In the meantime, between Manafort, Cohen, McGahn and others, there will likely be more fun coming for the orange menace.  I look for some action regarding Don Jr. and Jared soon.  Unfortunately, the cost to our country for all this idiocy will take along time to remedy.

PH

I have zero legal background outside of watching a lot of Law and Order, so I hope someone can explain more about a sitting President not being accused of a crime.  This is not directly related to any specific President, just in general. 

Hypothetically.....what if a sitting President shoots someone in cold blood?  He/she cannot be accused of a crime?  I am picking the absolute extreme just to highlight the question.  What level of crime would he/she have to commit to be accused? 

Now speaking specifically, since 45 wasn't the acting President at the time the campaign violations were committed, does that play a part in it as well? 

Watching Law and Order still means you have zero legal background. (This is not a criticism of you....the show bears no relationship to reality).  My Cousin Vinny is much closer.

But, in any event, so far no sitting President has been indicted. Therefore, we don't know if an indictment would be quashed or not. There is no precedent. There are lots of opinions. People who support a current President say that the President cannot be indicted. People who dislike the current President say he can.  A good article on this can be found at:

https://www.theatlantic.com/po...l-indictment/560957/

Good article, irwin.  Thanks.  To summarize, there are a lot of differing opinions on the subject, and that the only way to find out is to try.  I'm OK with someone taking a shot.  Short of waiting (and praying) for November, it seems the only thing to do.  The list of potential witnesses in the Cohen matter listed in the plea deal could be formidable.

PH

purplehaze posted:

Heh... the bar is now so low it's actually underground.  Like a sewer line.  I hear you on the Ds, winetarelli.  Incredibly inept when it comes to elections.  If the Ds can't gain a majority in Congress this November, I'll start checking overseas real estate.  It's really gone b@ts#it crazy here.

PH

Why go overseas when you could move here?! I know people! ;-) 

bman posted:
purplehaze posted:

Heh... the bar is now so low it's actually underground.  Like a sewer line.  I hear you on the Ds, winetarelli.  Incredibly inept when it comes to elections.  If the Ds can't gain a majority in Congress this November, I'll start checking overseas real estate.  It's really gone b@ts#it crazy here.

PH

Why go overseas when you could move here?! I know people! ;-) 

If it wasn't for your winters, I'd love to live in Canada.  I'm thinking south.  Maybe Mexico.  I might even have a wall to protect me from the nutcases across the border.

PH

purplehaze posted:
bman posted:
purplehaze posted:

Heh... the bar is now so low it's actually underground.  Like a sewer line.  I hear you on the Ds, winetarelli.  Incredibly inept when it comes to elections.  If the Ds can't gain a majority in Congress this November, I'll start checking overseas real estate.  It's really gone b@ts#it crazy here.

PH

Why go overseas when you could move here?! I know people! ;-) 

If it wasn't for your winters, I'd love to live in Canada.  I'm thinking south.  Maybe Mexico.  I might even have a wall to protect me from the nutcases across the border.

PH

Freaking classic! I need to find a way to dine and drink with you, bring up something to rile you up, then sit back and enjoy.

purplehaze posted:
bman posted:
purplehaze posted:

Heh... the bar is now so low it's actually underground.  Like a sewer line.  I hear you on the Ds, winetarelli.  Incredibly inept when it comes to elections.  If the Ds can't gain a majority in Congress this November, I'll start checking overseas real estate.  It's really gone b@ts#it crazy here.

PH

Why go overseas when you could move here?! I know people! ;-) 

If it wasn't for your winters, I'd love to live in Canada.  

PH

No winter in southern BC and almost none in my hometown of Windsor Ontario!  Which my father used to describe to Americans as a suburb of Detroit, which is largely true.

bman posted:
purplehaze posted:
bman posted:
purplehaze posted:

Heh... the bar is now so low it's actually underground.  Like a sewer line.  I hear you on the Ds, winetarelli.  Incredibly inept when it comes to elections.  If the Ds can't gain a majority in Congress this November, I'll start checking overseas real estate.  It's really gone b@ts#it crazy here.

PH

Why go overseas when you could move here?! I know people! ;-) 

If it wasn't for your winters, I'd love to live in Canada.  

PH

No winter in southern BC and almost none in my hometown of Windsor Ontario!  Which my father used to describe to Americans as a suburb of Detroit, which is largely true.

I moved many years ago due to politics,  Lived south of Montreal.  FROZE my butt!!  As for me, I will look to the south and also SW Europe for an escape.   problem is that my love won't move due to grand-kids.  

billhike posted:
purplehaze posted:
bman posted:
purplehaze posted:

Heh... the bar is now so low it's actually underground.  Like a sewer line.  I hear you on the Ds, winetarelli.  Incredibly inept when it comes to elections.  If the Ds can't gain a majority in Congress this November, I'll start checking overseas real estate.  It's really gone b@ts#it crazy here.

PH

Why go overseas when you could move here?! I know people! ;-) 

If it wasn't for your winters, I'd love to live in Canada.  I'm thinking south.  Maybe Mexico.  I might even have a wall to protect me from the nutcases across the border.

PH

Freaking classic! I need to find a way to dine and drink with you, bring up something to rile you up, then sit back and enjoy.

Let's see if bman's offline idea gets any traction.  One way or another, I'm sure we'll meet up one of these days.

PH

flwino posted:
bman posted:
purplehaze posted:
bman posted:
purplehaze posted:

Heh... the bar is now so low it's actually underground.  Like a sewer line.  I hear you on the Ds, winetarelli.  Incredibly inept when it comes to elections.  If the Ds can't gain a majority in Congress this November, I'll start checking overseas real estate.  It's really gone b@ts#it crazy here.

PH

Why go overseas when you could move here?! I know people! ;-) 

If it wasn't for your winters, I'd love to live in Canada.  

PH

No winter in southern BC and almost none in my hometown of Windsor Ontario!  Which my father used to describe to Americans as a suburb of Detroit, which is largely true.

I moved many years ago due to politics,  Lived south of Montreal.  FROZE my butt!!  As for me, I will look to the south and also SW Europe for an escape.   problem is that my love won't move due to grand-kids.  

I'm mostly just blowing smoke on moving.  I've got 2 daughters and 3 grandkids within a few miles of me.  I'd be miserable without seeing them often, methinks.  

PH

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×