The Next President is...

[waveshaper]

1 hour ago, TreeA10 said:

Regarding Special Counsel, they have never prosecuted anyone for the reason or "crime" they were tasked to investigate but prosecuted smaller characters for procedural errors like testimony inaccuracy. Think Scooter Libby or Martha Stewart. 

Watergate Special Prosecutor Cox?

- ROE's; Investigate/prosecute all offenses arising out of the 1972 election involving the president, the White House staff, presidential appointments, etc. It was not limited to Watergate. The assumption of responsibility for a case was left to the discretion of the Special Prosecutor.

- Results/final tally; The indictment of 69 people, with trials or pleas resulting in 48 being found guilty, many of whom were Nixon’s top administration officials. The grand jury also named Nixon an unindicted conspirator. This indictment marked the first time in U.S. history that a president was so named. President Ford gave Nixon a pardon but everyone else was left to fend for themselves.  

[tk1313]

The statements I've quoted below, I believe, represent key differences between Democrat and Republican thinking.

16 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Look, benefit of the doubt here, if there really is nothing and the President and his campaign associates are innocent of all crimes and wrongdoing, then you have nothing to be worried about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument

16 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Maybe money and time is wasted, but at this point that's pennies on the dollar to restore the American people's faith and trust in our institutions of government.

I think Mueller is a great pick, but I disagree with the premise. A witch hunt against the political outsider is supposed to restore my faith in the government institutions? I have no doubt that if they could do it over, the party Republicans would reinstate the super delegates' ability to vote against their state (maybe throw in some coin flips) and rig the primaries like the Dems did so it could be Bush vs. Clinton, the ultimate showdown of the politically entitled.

Edited May 18, 2017 by tk1313

[Lord Ratner]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/national-security-adviser-mcmaster-trump-s-revelations-russians-wholly-appropriate-n760136
McMaster said: "I was in the room, the Secretary of State was in the room, as you know, the deputy adviser for national security, Dina Powell, and none of us felt in any way that conversation was inappropriate."
Sooooo...someone is lying?

No no, WaPo had an anonymous source. Who ya gunna trust?

I don't think this is about Trump anymore. I think it's very convenient for the opposition that's he's such a public persona disaster, because normally they have to completely invent things to be outraged about. But really this seems more like the desperate flailing of a party that has almost ZERO power at the federal, state, that local levels right now. And he may seem ridiculous on TV and Twitter, but so far his policies are not.

This is how he got elected, folks. Act nuts, look nuts, sound nuts, but speak truths the other politicians won't speak. If he keeps hammering through on the action side of things (Gorsuch, dismantling EPA rules, undoing net neutrality, Obamacare repeal, immigration enforcement, etc), I don't think the people who fancy themselves "in charge" are going to be able to stop him. They failed quite spectacularly during the election, why should the same strategy work now?

But if the investigation into Russian collusion yields nothing, he's going to be rubbing it in their faces very publicly in 2020


Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[HercDude]

On 5/18/2017 at 1:07 PM, Lord Ratner said:

No no, WaPo had an anonymous source. Who ya gunna trust?

This is how he got elected, folks. Act nuts, look nuts, sound nuts, but speak truths the other politicians won't speak.


Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 

Except he doesn't speak truths, pretty much ever.  Obama's wiretaps, Arabs dancing in New Jersey, millions of illegal voters,Ted Cruz's dad in Dallas, inauguration crowds, his opposition to the Iraq War . . . . . The man is so full of shit, when he happens to say something factual I'm more inclined to cite the broken clock theorem than attribute it to any political wisdom.  If the special prosecutor finds collusion with the Russians I don't for one second think it's because of malice.  He's demonstrated over and over he's just so incompetent that this kind of thing could happen right under his nose and he's too busy tweeting about Kristen Stewart's boyfriend to know what's going on.

[brickhistory]

Still not Hillary (or !Jeb!)

Illegals crossing is down some 70%.  Numbers being deported is up 40% (still miniscule, but it's a start)

Media/Democrats/NeverTrumpers have decided they are going to undo the election results.  Not to mention the freak show being generated is very effectively slowing the agenda he ran on to a crawl.  If Congress has/wants to spend its time on Russia/Russia/Russia, well, not much gets done on taxes, Obamacare, and the rest

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/19/trump-press-coverage-sets-new-standard-for-negativity-study.html

Not only are anonymous sources the primary means of attack, but their weapons are also anonymous.  "Memo" is read to a reporter over the phone.  "Someone is a person of interest," and, of course, Trump gets two scoops of ice cream.  No verification of the charges/alleged facts/memos, just a breathless rush to print the latest rumor.  Despite a string of being factually wrong articles in evidence.

He, Trump has more than his share of negative traits to be sure, but A) he won.  That should say something about the state of American politics today as well as the weakness of the other candidates EACH party ran, and B) he's still not Hillary.

The man is not an idiot.

[Duck]

I think most Americans are just tired of the media attacking him all the time over everything. Ice Cream scoops, really?

I was no fan of Obama, and got sick of the love obsession with the media, just as I would have been sick if it was all negative all the time like it has been for Trump.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[matmacwc]

Still not Hillary

Still not Merrick Garland

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

Still not Hillary

Still not Merrick Garland

Why not Merrick?

 

what is your thought process on that one?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Still not Hillary (or !Jeb!)

Illegals crossing is down some 70%.  Numbers being deported is up 40% (still miniscule, but it's a start)

Media/Democrats/NeverTrumpers have decided they are going to undo the election results.  Not to mention the freak show being generated is very effectively slowing the agenda he ran on to a crawl.  If Congress has/wants to spend its time on Russia/Russia/Russia, well, not much gets done on taxes, Obamacare, and the rest

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/19/trump-press-coverage-sets-new-standard-for-negativity-study.html

Not only are anonymous sources the primary means of attack, but their weapons are also anonymous.  "Memo" is read to a reporter over the phone.  "Someone is a person of interest," and, of course, Trump gets two scoops of ice cream.  No verification of the charges/alleged facts/memos, just a breathless rush to print the latest rumor.  Despite a string of being factually wrong articles in evidence.

He, Trump has more than his share of negative traits to be sure, but A) he won.  That should say something about the state of American politics today as well as the weakness of the other candidates EACH party ran, and B) he's still not Hillary.

The man is not an idiot.

Is it on track to beat Barry's 2.5 million folks that were deported?

 

And mind you W had 2 million under his belt after the rule change that saw any illegal caught and fingerprinted at the border counted as deported. so Donnie should be playing under the same rules as Barry.

 

Doesn't Donnie live for the freak shows? I recall his push to declare Barry a foreign resident and Muslim. I get it he wanted to destabilize all that man was doing, but come on...do you not remember how big that untruth was? Donnie has lived by those little lies throughout his campaign and I say he is a big boy he can take a little smear campaign regardless of outcome. What is that saying the ole folks have

 

you reap what you sow bro!

[brickhistory]

12 minutes ago, 1111 said:

 

do you not remember how big that untruth was?

 

 

Intentionally ironic?  If so, well played...

 

I only know what I read in the "newspapers."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration-arrests-up-during-trump/2017/05/17/74399a04-3b12-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.b2fad21e5d64

Fake news?

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Intentionally ironic?  If so, well played...

 

I only know what I read in the "newspapers."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration-arrests-up-during-trump/2017/05/17/74399a04-3b12-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.b2fad21e5d64

Fake news?

fake news? Well it depends if you count WaPo as propaganda. Back to business, arrests are up, but deportations are still lagging slightly behind for Donnie (across multiple news/media/propaganda/whatever we are calling it these days sources). Oh and WaPo is talking up the arrests (and not the actual deportation numbers) because that what it needs to do for the next 1262 days. 

 

I only know what I read in the "newspapers."- Me too, but you still have to apply your filter. At the end of the day, the Blues lost and it needs to do everything to slow down the Reds, that is how it works in good ole US of A, right?

 

[brickhistory]

Corpseman and/or 57 states. 

 

Given the binary choice present last November 2016 between viable candidates Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, enough people in enough states chose Trump.

The establishment, on both sides, didn't take kindly to that and appear to be attempting to overturn the results that both surprised and scared it.

Trump was not my first choice of the GOP (I won't use conservative except for, perhaps, a couple of them) candidates.  But he beat 16 other candidates in the primaries, then more than enough people did not want Hillary, myself included.  He won.  No hanging chads, no other excuses.  He won using the system that we in the United States have agreed to use in holding such elections.  He won.

So we are where we are today.  The Establishment, instead of seeking to change to fit the voters, is attempting to change the voter's choice via shady methods.

I'm agin that.

Want to ensure it doesn't happen again?  Run better candidates.

[Prozac]

I don't get this argument that the "establishment" is trying to overturn the results of the election. If Trump leaves the office, we are still left with a republican administration and a republican congress.  If he does leave, it might give congressional republicans some breathing room in the upcoming midterm.....resigning might be the best thing he could do for the party. I think more and more people are coming to terms with the fact that Trump is a dumpster fire and his administration is a detriment to the nation as a whole. 

[hispeed7721]

The complete meltdown of this CNN reporter makes my heart happy

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/randy-hall/2017/05/19/cnn-panel-slams-former-navy-seal-criticizing-anonymous-sources


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Lawman]

Why not Merrick?

what is your thought process on that one?

That given the election could have gone another way, if it had the best situation gun owners could hope for was a Supreme Court nominee who didn't view the second amendment at an individual right shifting the balance to a more "progressive" view of the 2nd amendment.

That's the best case scenario with a Hillary win. I doubt the democrats would have offered Garland post election because they wouldn't have a need to and could appoint something more in line with the Kagen/Sotomayor type model they had under Obama.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

 

That given the election could have gone another way, if it had the best situation gun owners could hope for was a Supreme Court nominee who didn't view the second amendment at an individual right shifting the balance to a more "progressive" view of the 2nd amendment.

That's the best case scenario with a Hillary win. I doubt the democrats would have offered Garland post election because they wouldn't have a need to and could appoint something more in line with the Kagen/Sotomayor type model they had under Obama.

 

Do you think he was qualified for a hearing?

and by qualified I mean does he have the appropriate credentials as a judge to make him eligible for a hearing leading to legislators' yes/no vote.

And not qualified in the sense of if it good or bad for Blue team/Red team. 

[Lawman]

Do you think he was qualified for a hearing?
and by qualified I mean does he have the appropriate credentials as a judge to make him eligible for a hearing leading to legislators' yes/no vote.
And not qualified in the sense of if it good or bad for Blue team/Red team. 

I don't think it mattered.

Neither side of the isle has a leg to stand on calling the other side "obstructionist." The fact was democrats wanted to appoint a Supreme Court justice for life while dismissing the differences between him and the man he replaces and their views on personal liberty, plus they wanted to do it during the lame duck period of the presidency. This after they argued so hard against Bush getting to "decide the fate of the court" during the twilight of his presidency. Then they turned around and drug out the confirmation of the elected presidents nominee and filibustered the perfectly qualified after screaming about the need to have a "full" Supreme Court for the last 8 months. So spare me the whole this outrage that a republican senate refused to entertain the hearing on a justice they already said didn't meet the ideological requirements that had been set. It would have been as much a non starter as if Trump put somebody forward who said "marriage is between a man and a woman period end of story."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brickhistory]

Red herring and/or moot event.

Or ask Joe Biden.

Split control of government means not always getting one's way.

Obviously, you didn't like the way the Garland nomination played out.

edited to add:  Given the make-up of the Senate as it was comprised at the time, no, no he wasn't qualified for a hearing and they acted via inaction accordingly.

Spoken to your senators about this?

 

 

Edited May 22, 2017 by brickhistory

[Breckey]

3 hours ago, Lawman said:

The fact was democrats wanted to appoint a Supreme Court justice for life while dismissing the differences between him and the man he replaces and their views on personal liberty, plus they wanted to do it during the lame duck period of the presidency. 

Obama wasn't a lame duck when Scalia died and Garland was nominated. He still had 9 months left before the election and nea 20% of his term remaining. "Advise and consent" does not mean not even entertaining a hearing. If they determined that his qualifications did not meet the standards required for the high court then the Senate could vote appropriately.

[Lawman]

Obama wasn't a lame duck when Scalia died and Garland was nominated. He still had 9 months left before the election and nea 20% of his term remaining. "Advise and consent" does not mean not even entertaining a hearing. If they determined that his qualifications did not meet the standards required for the high court then the Senate could vote appropriately.

How much advising did Obama ask or accept from the other side of the isle.

As I said neither side gets to call the other obstructionist. Not after watching them slow roll and filibuster all of Trumps confirmations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

5 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Red herring and/or moot event.

Or ask Joe Biden.

Split control of government means not always getting one's way.

Obviously, you didn't like the way the Garland nomination played out.

edited to add:  Given the make-up of the Senate as it was comprised at the time, no, no he wasn't qualified for a hearing and they acted via inaction accordingly.

Spoken to your senators about this?

 

 

Did not mean to get you worked up, bro. But it is hard to read a question on the internet on these issues and not get your flame on!

 

However, thanks for your feedback, sincerely appreciated!

[Lawman]

Did not mean to get you worked up, bro. But it is hard to read a question on the internet on these issues and not get your flame on!

 

However, thanks for your feedback, sincerely appreciated!

 

I find its best to view it as two sides being children and hoping in the long run they got what they really wanted which was not Merrick Garland or a similar justice.

 

Democrats knew he was a poison pill but they were banking on that. They thought they would win two battles out of this where they get to spend 9 months embarrassing the other side in the media because "he's perfectly qualified" when like I said you and I know how a "perfectly qualified" justice who had said he didn't support gay marriage would have been a non starter. Then they get the second victory because everybody just knew Hillary was gonna win and they could get a justice they really wanted and rebalance the court to their liking.

 

Republicans were playing on the hard 6 and hold the line on the odds they might actually pull this off. Most importantly it left this issue as something to campaign on and drag more people out to vote which they knew they would need.

 

Neither side was interested in the health of the court or what's best for the country. It was about consolidating power and whipping up fury in their respective base.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[matmacwc]

What he said, gotta see the big picture bro.

Edited May 22, 2017 by matmacwc

[brickhistory]

4 hours ago, 1111 said:

Did not mean to get you worked up, bro. But it is hard to read a question on the internet on these issues and not get your flame on!

 

However, thanks for your feedback, sincerely appreciated!

Definitely "not worked up."  Both sides pretty much suck.

Democrats seem to be able to actually accomplish things (much that I don't like as in Obamacare).  Republicans seem to be good at... well, I'm still working on that one.  But in this case, they had the numbers to hold their line until, surprise!, they took the White House.  High stakes game on that one because if, as expected, Hillary won, the uber-liberal she would've named would have taken his/her/its seat on the Court would have been very gun unfriendly among other issues.

 

 

[HeloDude]

6 hours ago, Breckey said:

 "Advise and consent" does not mean not even entertaining a hearing.

Sure it does.  If it doesn't, then why didn't the Supreme Court step in and make a ruling that the Senate had to offer a hearing?