American Politics

[Xpartan]

Since everybody has an opinion on the recent indictment of the former guy, let's take a vote.

The vote has three parts. The first part is for you to state your political leanings. The second part is your opinion of the former guy's guilt or innocence of the charges against him The third part is actually in three parts also. If Hilary, Obama or Biden had been indicted with the same charges that the Feds indicted the former guy with, would your opinion be that they were guilty or innocent.

Yes, I realize that "guilt" or "innocence" is what is decided during a trial. This is about your opinion.

Ill go first. 1. I am a Democrat; 2. My opinion is that the former guy is guilty of some or all of the charges; 3 a. Hilary: She would be guilty; 3 b. Obama: he would be guilty; 3 c. Biden: he would be guilty.

OK, let's play.

1. Center-left.

2. I believe he's guilty of all that and then some.

3. Yes, I would consider them guilty under the same or similar circumstances.

[Tiny 12]

Here's a list of all recessions since the Great Depression and the party that controlled the House.

1937 Democratic Party
1945 Democratic Party
1949 Democratic Party
1953 Republican Party. The recession started in July, 1953, and Democrats controlled the House for the four years prior to January, 1953.
1958 Democrats
1960 Democrats
1969 Democrats
1973 Democrats
1980 Democrats
1981 Democrats
1990 Democrats
2001 Republican Party
2008 Democrats
2020 Democrats

Sorry, I should have written "after the great depression" of 1929. The Republican Party controlled the House then.

[Elvis 2008]

1. Consequently, I have voted for Dems and NO Repubs in every election since I knew what the fuck I was doing with my vote, essentially since the middle of Reagan's 1st term as so-called potus.

2. My opinion is Trump is quilty of what he has proudly and repeatedly admitted he did while lying about his having the "right" to do it. That would be most or all of every count of every crime for which he has been indicted.

Knew what the fuck you were doing? You Democratic douches believed Russiagate was all true. Hell, YOU probably still do. And let's be clear, Russiagate originated with Hiliary Clinton and her attempt to rig an election. And now even after Russiagate, you think Trump is guilty without a trial. I wish that was a surprise.

Tooms, why don't you move to China and become a citizen there? You would love it. One party rule. Government says you are guilty and you are despite whatever the facts may be. It is nirvana for you.

[Elvis 2008]

I am waiting for Putin to leave / die and the FSB archives to be opened.

Putin owned Trump. That is what the Steele Dossier said. Oops, that was all bullshit. Putin is a bad guy because he invaded Ukraine. Would the war end if Putin dropped dead of a heartache? No, the war has supported among a majority of Russians because they were feeling surrounded by NATO. The people feel this is a war for survival.

So what is all this Putin is evil BS really about? Let's just blow off the disgusting Steele Dossier because Putin is evil. And let's just blow off the alleged $5 million bribe Joe Biden was given by Burisma because Zelensky is a hero, Ukraine is pure as the driven snow, and Putin is evil. Hell, Ukraine is so damned good that even if they gave Biden a bribe it is no big deal. But even the hint that Trump took a payout from Putin, even if it is totally false and it was, is way worse because Putin is so evil.

[John Clayton]

...My suspicion is that it was not...

I am waiting for Putin to leave / die and the FSB archives to be opened.

[Tiny 12]

I do not consider people guilty before a trial.

Agreed, 100%. There was an interesting article in the New York Times the other day. Reading it, you'd believe the reason all this happened is because Trump's a hoarder. He liked to keep "newspaper clippings, documents and other mementos, according to more than a half dozen people who have worked for him over the years. " More information about that will come out in a trial. Also perhaps whether any of the info in the documents was leaked. My suspicion is that it was not.

Like as many as 5% of American adults, Trump may suffer from a mental disorder, called Plyushkin's disorder, also known as compulsive hoarding. If that's the case and the info didn't get out to anyone who mattered, like Putin, then there's a strong argument he shouldn't go to jail.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/15/u...nts-boxes.html

[Tiny 12]

1. My political leaning is to vote for the member of the Party that legislated and produced every major economic expansion and historic job gains and none of the Great Depressions, Great Recessions and Massive Jobs Losses since at least the late 1920's and avoid voting in any way that might help a member of the party that has legislated and produced the exact opposite of those positive results during the same timeframe. Consequently, I have voted for Dems and NO Repubs in every election since I knew what the fuck I was doing with my vote, essentially since the middle of Reagan's 1st term as so-called potus.

All revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives. The House has as much power over the economy as the President. While it's difficult to define periods of "major economic expansion and historic job gains", recessions are easy to spot. Here's a list of all recessions since the Great Depression and the party that controlled the House.

1937 Democratic Party
1945 Democratic Party
1949 Democratic Party
1953 Republican Party. The recession started in July, 1953, and Democrats controlled the House for the four years prior to January, 1953.
1958 Democrats
1960 Democrats
1969 Democrats
1973 Democrats
1980 Democrats
1981 Democrats
1990 Democrats
2001 Republican Party
2008 Democrats
2020 Democrats

This is a spurious relationship. If you do not stop continually presenting your spurious relationship between the party of the president and recessions and GDP growth, I'll trot out mine again showing the huge number of young Americans who died in foreign wars under the rule of bloodthirsty Democratic Presidents. Like the one with Russia that Trump tried to avert, and that you, Xpartan and Paulie want to start. (Sarcasm alert)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_...tes_Congresses

[EihTooms]

Since everybody has an opinion on the recent indictment of the former guy, let's take a vote.

The vote has three parts. The first part is for you to state your political leanings. The second part is your opinion of the former guy's guilt or innocence of the charges against him The third part is actually in three parts also. If Hilary, Obama or Biden had been indicted with the same charges that the Feds indicted the former guy with, would your opinion be that they were guilty or innocent.

Yes, I realize that "guilt" or "innocence" is what is decided during a trial. This is about your opinion.

Ill go first. 1. I am a Democrat; 2. My opinion is that the former guy is guilty of some or all of the charges; 3 a. Hilary: She would be guilty; 3 b. Obama: he would be guilty; 3 c. Biden: he would be guilty.

1. My political leaning is to vote for the member of the Party that legislated and produced every major economic expansion and historic job gains and none of the Great Depressions, Great Recessions and Massive Jobs Losses since at least the late 1920's and avoid voting in any way that might help a member of the party that has legislated and produced the exact opposite of those positive results during the same timeframe. Consequently, I have voted for Dems and NO Repubs in every election since I knew what the fuck I was doing with my vote, essentially since the middle of Reagan's 1st term as so-called potus.

2. My opinion is Trump is quilty of what he has proudly and repeatedly admitted he did while lying about his having the "right" to do it. That would be most or all of every count of every crime for which he has been indicted.

3. If anyone else on the planet had as proudly and repeatedly admitted to committing the crimes for which Trump has been indicted as Trump has over the past several months, there is no way anyone with at least 2 working brain cells wouldn't hold the opinion that they were guilty.

[JustTK]

Superb discussion on why Ivermectin and natural immunity do not work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umLgGcmm7ac

Answer. Bcos they do work but they are not owned by Big Pharma.

[Elvis 2008]

You are reading far too much into my question and attributing to me things I did not say. I used the word consider in my question, which was "If Biden or Obama or Hillary had done the things that the OTTIASAFG is charged with, would you consider them to be guilty? A simple "yes" or "no" will be sufficient. "..

No, you and Tooms are brain dead when it comes to the law. I do not know what Obama did but vote to indict Hilary and Biden? Fuck yeah! Find them guilty before a trial? No, I am not a douche. Unlike you and Tooms, I do not consider people guilty before a trial.

As far as all your other dumb ranting on what Trump may have done, that has NOTHING to do with an indictment. If he is found guilty and if what he does is worse than the others, then you sentence him more harshly.

But what else is new? The only thing you Democratic douches think is anyone who votes Republican should be locked up.

[EihTooms]

That's irrelevant. The issue is whether Trump was taking actions contrary to the best interests of Putin, not whether they succeeded. I actually disagreed with Trump's sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and agreed with Biden's move to lift them.

That said, I can find just as many links, that tell a completely different story from yours.

Trump blocks Putins pipeline with US sanctions
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blog...tins-pipeline/

The Atlantic Council article says the pipeline was weeks away from completion when the US imposed sanctions, on December 20, 2019. And it still hadn't been completed when Biden waived sanctions in May of 2021:

U.S. waives sanctions on Nord Stream 2 as Biden seeks to mend Europe ties
https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...ce-2021-05-19/

And as to NATO spending,

NATO Members Ramp Up Defense Spending After Pressure From Trump
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ure-from-trump

NATO Allies Now Spend $50 Billion More on Defense Than in 2016
https://www.heritage.org/defense/com...e-defense-2016

In gesture to Trump, US allies close to deal to pay more for NATO running costs
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-n...-idUSKBN1Y01WY

Your Atlantic Council link repeats the same "Trump did too little too late, so the Russians will complete it anyway" point my links made. I would say delaying any response for months and only doing too little too late to change the outcome is pretty much the definition of an empty political show while serving Putin's interests.

And none of your NATO funding links refute the reality that the increase in their contribution was pushed for and began before Trump became so-called president. Nothing new happened after he made a speech about it. That trend had already been set in motion by Obama.

[Xpartan]

You didn't exactly answer the question I intended to pose, which was would you put them in jail for the confidential documents. You provided a much broader answer. I'm no lawyer, but would suspect the alternate sets of electors and pressure on people like Raffensperger, Pence and Rusty Bowers are much more problematic than the confidential documents at Mar a Lago.

Do I think Trump grabbed the documents to give to Russia? No. I believe it's some combination of the following,

1. He was too lazy to go through the boxes and pull out confidential documents, to turn over to the DOJ. And also documents of whatsoever nature that would reflect badly on him or provide evidence for a prosecution totally unrelated to his record keeping. If you read the indictment you'll see he gave a nonverbal cue to his attorney to pluck out any problematic documents instead of turning them over to the DOJ. He theoretically could have delegated the work. But what if there were potentially incriminating documents, for example related to his post election shenanigans, in the boxes?

2. He's a narcissist and doesn't believe the rules apply to him. Most likely he's gotten away with this kind of behavior during his business career and it hadn't previously come back to haunt him.

3. He thought it would be nice to have the mementos. Or to show them off.

4. He believes some of the documents have value, and would like to sell them someday or pass them onto his grandkids. Or put them in a Donald Trump theme park somewhere near Orlando.

OK, so far so good.

As to your allegation, it's unlikely in my opinion that he was a Russian plant. He's actually a Democratic Party plant, the Democrat's best friend. He almost singlehandedly lost the last three elections for the Republicans, although they did manage to eke out a small majority in the House in 2022. He was a card carrying member of the Democratic Party, at which time he favored a Bernie Sanders wealth tax, had no problem with partial birth abortion, and contributed generously to some Democratic candidates' campaigns.

I'm sure you don't really mean that. You can't possibly believe he was a Democratic Party plant. He left the Democrats because he knew they wouldn't let him run amok. Did he help the Democrats on his way out? Sure, but that's because he doesn't have an ideology. If the Republicans weren't complete and utter cowards, they would've moved heaven and earth to stop him.

Trump notoriously does not like having people take notes. He also doesn't write emails or send texts. So I'm not sure his behavior with Putin was that out of the ordinary. I do believe he was trying to build a rapport and trust with Putin and thought not having his interpreter around might help. He's not the best example, but Nixon was known to do this. And there are many instances when a USA president took a private walk in the rose garden or wherever with another foreign leader. I think this approach, relationship building, is a great idea. Obama, Hillary Clinton and Biden were too sanctimonious and morally arrogant to do the same thing with people like Putin, Ji and Kim.

Um, no, Putin was the only non-English speaking world leader Trump talked to without an interpreter (at least, I've never heard about any other occasions). And to add insult to injury, he's our main adversary. All of this is very out of the ordinary, methinks.

And yes, if you believe scum sucking neocon John Bolton, Trump asked Ji to help him in his election. If you believe that, then you should also believe it's very possible Trump asked Putin for help in the 2020 election and so didn't want a U.S. interpreter around. I do believe Trump, like Biden, puts his own interests above the country's.

Thank you.

Regardless, in my opinion Trump did not go easy on Russia, as evidenced by his pressure on NATO members to spend more on defense, and his sanctions on Nord Stream 2.

By the time he imposed the sanctions on NS2 they were irrelevant. His pressure on NATO members amounted to nothing more than his attempts to destroy the alliance. That would've been Putin's wet dream. Four more years in office and he would've succeeded.

Trump Discussed Pulling USA From NATO, Aides Say Amid New Concerns Over Russia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/u...ent-trump.html

Of course, Trump had to keep some appearances. It's like his bombing a Syrian base -- after telling the Russians the coordinates, LOL.

When the former president Trump called Putin's invasion of Ukraine "genius" was he still trying to "build rapport"?

I think not.

Which brings us back to the classified documents and your pointers. Russia would probably pay good money for some of them, don't you think?

And do you know for sure they haven't?

I don't.

[PVMonger]

Since everybody has an opinion on the recent indictment of the former guy, let's take a vote.

The vote has three parts. The first part is for you to state your political leanings. The second part is your opinion of the former guy's guilt or innocence of the charges against him The third part is actually in three parts also. If Hilary, Obama or Biden had been indicted with the same charges that the Feds indicted the former guy with, would your opinion be that they were guilty or innocent.

Yes, I realize that "guilt" or "innocence" is what is decided during a trial. This is about your opinion.

Ill go first. 1. I am a Democrat; 2. My opinion is that the former guy is guilty of some or all of the charges; 3 a. Hilary: She would be guilty; 3 b. Obama: he would be guilty; 3 c. Biden: he would be guilty.

[PVMonger]

First, apologies. I phrased the question poorly, partly because I don't know what OTTIASAFG means. I meant to ask if you'd jail all three if they did what Trump did at Mar a Lago, with the documents.

I don't believe Trump loving Republicans are any more or less hypocritical than Progressive Democrats. Both want two sets of rules, one for Democrats and one for Republicans.

I wouldn't throw Trump, Clinton or Biden in jail, but then I might not vote to convict Julian Assange either if I figured they were going to lock him up for 20 years. Yeah, what Trump did in hiding documents and making false statements was more problematic. But Elvis has an excellent point. Maybe you do convict them all. Pence and Biden get misdemeanors and several hundred dollar fines. Hillary gets a ninety day probated sentence, to serve as deterrence to others against hubris and stupidity. And Trump gets several months at Mar a Lago with an ankle bracelet. That might be fair.

FYI, I answered your question but the response hasn't shown up yet. But, to reiterate, if any one of them had done a fraction of what the OTTIASAFG has been charged with, I would consider them guilty. Since sentencing guidelines have an impact on the sentence, I can't control that phase. But it I were a prosecutor, I would push for whatever the maximum sentence is. Plus, I would request that the sentences run consecutively.

And, for the record, OTTIASAFG stands for one-term, twice-impeached, adjudicated-sexual-assaulter, former guy.

[Tiny 12]

I am not talking about the policies of Sanders, Tiny but his character. Yes, some of his policies are insane and would lead us off a cliff. Others of them are not as kooky as you might think, but my point was I do not believe Sanders is a narcissist unlike so many others.

Point well taken Elvis. I recall Sanders telling people their health care would be worse under his socialized medicine plan, and their taxes would go up to pay for it. I don't think he's a narcissist, and he doesn't intentionally tell as many lies as your average politician.