So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[Lews Therin]

Alright, off my soapbox, but I do want to say if the mods ban me, which is likely unless they face-punch themselves, and I disappear that will have been the reason. I am not afraid to tackle difficult subjects with respect and reason, and my goal is to get everyone to understand why someone would think differently than you. More than likely, it's not because they are evil.

Get off the soapbox on the mods. No need to taunt them and blame them. Nobody says things like that if they don't suspect that they are already not following the rules.

[GuitarStv]

I entered these forums because of how I perceived unfairness toward anyone that didn't tow the line as far as hating Trump. Look at this thread alone, there are over 5,000 responses in which 99.9% are negative towards Trump. And there are other threads with similar ratios.

Many (most?) of us entered the forums because we were interested in early retirement or the MMM blog.  Perhaps coming to the forums for the sole purpose of defending Donald Trump has coloured the way you responded to others?

[talltexan]

I am not a Republican, or a Democrat. I have voted both party's in past presidential elections. I am an Independent through and through and I try to sift through all of the noise to come to logical conclusions. I am not a Trump fanboy, as he has many, many faults, but I don't hate him either as he has done some good. And let's be honest here, the Democrats gave this country a horrible choice in 2016. What fascinates me are the incredible over-reactions of his haters, it's a little bit scary to be honest.

So--to be plain--you hate Hillary Clinton?

[bacchi]

I entered these forums because of how I perceived unfairness toward anyone that didn't tow the line as far as hating Trump. Look at this thread alone, there are over 5,000 responses in which 99.9% are negative towards Trump. And there are other threads with similar ratios.

Many (most?) of us entered the forums because we were interested in early retirement or the MMM blog.  Perhaps coming to the forums for the sole purpose of defending Donald Trump has coloured the way you responded to others?

Versatile is an Independent! I'm sure that she joined conservative sites like redstate.com to argue against the unfairness of that site's attitude to liberals and Clinton.

[ysette9]

All:

Some of you want to discuss the Mueller investigation which I'll be happy to discuss with you but first let me clear the air because some of you are speculating.

I am not a Republican, or a Democrat. I have voted both party's in past presidential elections. I am an Independent through and through and I try to sift through all of the noise to come to logical conclusions. I am not a Trump fanboy, as he has many, many faults, but I don't hate him either as he has done some good. And let's be honest here, the Democrats gave this country a horrible choice in 2016. What fascinates me are the incredible over-reactions of his haters, it's a little bit scary to be honest.

I entered these forums because of how I perceived unfairness toward anyone that didn't tow the line as far as hating Trump. Look at this thread alone, there are over 5,000 responses in which 99.9% are negative towards Trump. And there are other threads with similar ratios.

But that is not what truly bothers me, it's the fair amount of you that treat others with contempt and open hostility because they believe differently than you. Some of you have made blanket statements that ALL Trump supporters (tens of millions) are racist, monsters, dumbasses, etc. This is a very unhealthy relationship to have with your countrymen or anybody for that matter and as MMM adherents, I would think that some of you would have to know that these statements of contempt are extremely damaging for future membership in the club. Surely the mods understand this? If the goal is inclusivity regardless of political party than why do some of you have carte-blanche to say virtually anything if you hate Trump? I can show you multiple examples if you want proof.

Alright, off my soapbox, but I do want to say if the mods ban me, which is likely unless they face-punch themselves, and I disappear that will have been the reason. I am not afraid to tackle difficult subjects with respect and reason, and my goal is to get everyone to understand why someone would think differently than you. More than likely, it's not because they are evil.

I think there are decent points here. We should all be on the watch for blanket statements on the order of “all x people are y” because that isn’t fair or true. I haven’t read this entire thread so I can’t speak to the specific accusations here, but we should definitely be able to debate points and facts with supporting links and talk about what we think is best for the country. Reasonable people can differ on that. In the last few pages I haven’t seen what I would describe as an “over reaction of haters”, but a long list of corruption and shady characters, any one of which would have sunk a normal political person.

I do think that for those who find Trump and embarrassment and a travesty, the gut reaction is to be violently against anything that comes out of his mouth or administration. I think that is fatiguing. Some things he does are truly awful and many things are merely short-sighted or dumb or self-serving. Occasionally he may come out with something reasonable that is backed by evidence.

I think it will benefit us all to take a moment and consider the impact and seriousness of what he says before deciding what level of alarm to sound. To not do that is to equate stupid stuff like fire prevention by raking forests or feeding cold fast food to American football players with truly alarming things like the number of convicted and accused career criminals surrounding the president. The first two deserve a sad shake of the head and the latter should make us all sit up and demand better accountability out of Congress.

[nereo]

I am not a Republican, or a Democrat. I have voted both party's in past presidential elections. I am an Independent through and through and I try to sift through all of the noise to come to logical conclusions. I am not a Trump fanboy, as he has many, many faults, but I don't hate him either as he has done some good. And let's be honest here, the Democrats gave this country a horrible choice in 2016. What fascinates me are the incredible over-reactions of his haters, it's a little bit scary to be honest.

To honest questions @Versatile

1) why do you think HRC was a horrible candidate?
2) what actions of DJT do you think have been good?

[ysette9]

I think HRC was a good candidate in that she was intelligent, educated, experienced, and level-headed. Meaning, she would be a great candidate for a position if chosen by an executive headhunting committee or a board of directors.

She was a bad candidate in that she had this wealth of political history and struggled to relate to the unwashed masses who care more about who they would like to have a beer with than who is actually qualified for an extraordinary job. Unfortunately the most important job in this country is not decided by a competent hiring committee looking at relevant work experience, but by us fools.

[bacchi]

I think HRC was a good candidate in that she was intelligent, educated, experienced, and level-headed. Meaning, she would be a great candidate for a position if chosen by an executive headhunting committee or a board of directors.

She was a bad candidate in that she had this wealth of political history and struggled to relate to the unwashed masses who care more about who they would like to have a beer with than who is actually qualified for an extraordinary job. Unfortunately the most important job in this country is not decided by a competent hiring committee looking at relevant work experience, but by us fools.

Having a beer with DJT wouldn't be a picnic either. You wouldn't get a word in unless you were agreeing with how great he was.

Though they're both corporatists, DJT avoided that label by deflecting attention to the real* problem, illegal immigrants. "Sure, daddy gave me a million dollars at 12...hey, look, those brown people are taking your jobs!"


* </s>

[GuitarStv]

I think HRC was a good candidate in that she was intelligent, educated, experienced, and level-headed. Meaning, she would be a great candidate for a position if chosen by an executive headhunting committee or a board of directors.

She was a bad candidate in that she had this wealth of political history and struggled to relate to the unwashed masses who care more about who they would like to have a beer with than who is actually qualified for an extraordinary job. Unfortunately the most important job in this country is not decided by a competent hiring committee looking at relevant work experience, but by us fools.

Having a beer with DJT wouldn't be a picnic either. You wouldn't get a word in unless you were agreeing with how great he was.

Though they're both corporatists, DJT avoided that label by deflecting attention to the real* problem, illegal immigrants. "Sure, daddy gave me a million dollars at 12...hey, look, those brown people are taking your jobs!"


* </s>

you forgot to include . . . .

while paying illegal immigrants to do jobs for him because they're cheaper than hiring American

[sherr]

I think it will benefit us all to take a moment and consider the impact and seriousness of what he says before deciding what level of alarm to sound. To not do that is to equate stupid stuff like fire prevention by raking forests or feeding cold fast food to American football players with truly alarming things like the number of convicted and accused career criminals surrounding the president.

Of the two "stupid" things you mention though:
1) No one was raising any alarms about Trump feeding people fast food. That literally was just people remarking on how dumb it was. The "sad shake of the head" that you were referring to.
2) Raking the forest wasn't really a "stupid" thing. It was Trump attacking California, because California is a Democratic State. Trump regularly treats people, organizations, and states differently based on his perceptions of how Democratic or Republican they are, which is a legitimate problem from a President. So while the "raking the forest" comments may have been "stupid" on it's face, it's not stupid to complain that the President wants to deny disaster-relief funds from Democrats and give Republicans "A+ Treatment".

The first two deserve a sad shake of the head and the latter should make us all sit up and demand better accountability out of Congress.

Not out of "Congress", out of the Republican-controlled Senate. AKA demand accountability out of the Republican party over their kowtowing to a Republican president. AKA not going to happen.

[ysette9]

Fair enough. I could have picked better examples but was in a rush. But the overall point is I think the Trump opposition does itself a disservice when having the same level of regardless of the severity of stupid. I can see how others would start tuning it out in a boy-who-cries-wolf sort of way.

[sherr]

Fair enough. I could have picked better examples but was in a rush. But the overall point is I think the Trump opposition does itself a disservice when having the same level of regardless of the severity of stupid. I can see how others would start tuning it out in a boy-who-cries-wolf sort of way.

I would be interested if you did come up with better examples. Because I see people pointing out that Trump is legitimately terrible in many, many ways, and that's not boy-who-cries-wolf. And this is coming after 8 years of Republicans screaming and making up conspiracy theories to justify their hatred of Obama. One side is way way worse.

[ysette9]

Fair enough. I could have picked better examples but was in a rush. But the overall point is I think the Trump opposition does itself a disservice when having the same level of regardless of the severity of stupid. I can see how others would start tuning it out in a boy-who-cries-wolf sort of way.

I would be interested if you did come up with better examples. Because I see people pointing out that Trump is legitimately terrible in many, many ways, and that's not boy-who-cries-wolf. And this is coming after 8 years of Republicans screaming and making up conspiracy theories to justify their hatred of Obama. One side is way way worse.

In some ways I feel like the border wall extension has turned into this in some sense. We already have walls along some period of the border. Would adding more create issues? Yes, there are legit issues with eminent domain land seizures and environmental impacts, and it has turned into this major black eye internationally with our perception of treatment of refugees. But on the other hand, it isn’t like wall doesn’t already exist in places. This isn’t a black-and-white issue and reasonable people can disagree.

I do feel the Trump detractors have dug in on this because of the same reason I take a hard line with my 4-year old when she starts having a fit over what might have initially been a somewhat reasonable request: it is really, really important not to give into bad behavior due to the precedent it sets.

[Lews Therin]

It's stupid for the same reason they don't wall in countries. A) mongolians don't try to conquer your country with horses, and b) it takes very little effort to dig a tunnel, haul a rope, or place a ladder. It solves nothing, wastes money, and allows people to feel good about being racist.

[Versatile]

I am not a Republican, or a Democrat. I have voted both party's in past presidential elections. I am an Independent through and through and I try to sift through all of the noise to come to logical conclusions. I am not a Trump fanboy, as he has many, many faults, but I don't hate him either as he has done some good. And let's be honest here, the Democrats gave this country a horrible choice in 2016. What fascinates me are the incredible over-reactions of his haters, it's a little bit scary to be honest.

So--to be plain--you hate Hillary Clinton?

Not a fan, no.

[Versatile]

I entered these forums because of how I perceived unfairness toward anyone that didn't tow the line as far as hating Trump. Look at this thread alone, there are over 5,000 responses in which 99.9% are negative towards Trump. And there are other threads with similar ratios.

Many (most?) of us entered the forums because we were interested in early retirement or the MMM blog.  Perhaps coming to the forums for the sole purpose of defending Donald Trump has coloured the way you responded to others?

I've been reading the blog and forums for years. The complaineypants article is by far my most favorite thing Pete has ever written, and I have recommended it to many people over the years. I have been retired for 5 years now, but I was doing the MMM program long before I ever heard of frugal mustaches. I am not only interested in early retirement, I am living it.

Perhaps you have misread what I wrote earlier: I entered these forums because of the caustic nature related to Trump. I hope to bring greater clarity to others so there isn't so much hate. I think that is a worthy goal.

[Versatile]

I entered these forums because of how I perceived unfairness toward anyone that didn't tow the line as far as hating Trump. Look at this thread alone, there are over 5,000 responses in which 99.9% are negative towards Trump. And there are other threads with similar ratios.

Many (most?) of us entered the forums because we were interested in early retirement or the MMM blog.  Perhaps coming to the forums for the sole purpose of defending Donald Trump has coloured the way you responded to others?

Versatile is an Independent! I'm sure that she joined conservative sites like redstate.com to argue against the unfairness of that site's attitude to liberals and Clinton.

Two things: I am a he and I've never visited redstate.com. Does redstate have a mission statement calling for inclusivity for all people? This site does and why I have raised a fuss. It's not any more complicated than that.

[Versatile]

I am not a Republican, or a Democrat. I have voted both party's in past presidential elections. I am an Independent through and through and I try to sift through all of the noise to come to logical conclusions. I am not a Trump fanboy, as he has many, many faults, but I don't hate him either as he has done some good. And let's be honest here, the Democrats gave this country a horrible choice in 2016. What fascinates me are the incredible over-reactions of his haters, it's a little bit scary to be honest.

To honest questions @Versatile



1) why do you think HRC was a horrible candidate?
2) what actions of DJT do you think have been good?

I need to address the Mueller questions before I get into discussing Clinton. As well as what the President has done right.

[Versatile]

The Mueller investigation has provided no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. The Mueller investigation has provided no evidence that Trump committed any crimes much less an impeachable offense.

Except for his kids meeting with Russian agents to discuss dirt on Hillary and his campaign manager giving internal polling data to the Russians so that they can more effectively target their misinformation campaigns? And that's just what we know about currently.

Oh you mean Trump himself, that we can prove? How about asking Russia to hack the DNC to find "Hillary's missing emails" on TV?

Then you add in his obvious pattern of behavior or kowtowing to Putin at every opportunity and refusing to implement the sanctions that Congress places on Russian companies or people and the bizarre Helsinki joint speech where Trump essentially said "I asked him about interference and he says he didn't do it and I believe him over our all our own intelligence agencies" and on and on and on.

Come on.

Have you actually researched the behind-the-scene actions of multiple players in regard to the June 6th 2016 meeting? All we ever hear about is Don Jr, Manafort, Kushner, and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. It's a bit more complicated than what is portrayed. Here is a good reference to highlight what I am talking about:

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/08/13/trump_tower_meeting_looks_increasingly_like_a_setup.html

Now I will be honest with you and say I don't know what happened and I am going to wait for Muellers investigation to wrap up before I make a final decision. On the face of it, I'm pretty sure that if either camp were presented with damaging information about the other than they would have run with it. The question then becomes what is illegal and did either the Clinton camp or Trump camp actually break the law.

What is interesting to me is if an unclear meeting (to us common folk) is presented as fact of collusion, then the Clinton camp is guilty as well when they paid foreign operatives (including Russian) for dirt on Trump. I get the sense that Mueller will not be investigating that however. I point this out as a source of frustration for many conservatives and it gives credence (to them) that this is in fact a witch hunt. Let's see what Mueller says, what do you say? He has a hell of a lot more resources than either you or I.

Point number two is simply sarcasm on Trump's part. It's poor humor, but nonetheless it's sarcasm. It's just a cheap way for Trump to highlight that Clinton permanently deleted 33,000 e-mails after they were subpoenaed. How in the hell this isn't obstruction of justice is beyond me.

Point number three is highly, highly subjective.  And it beckons back to Trump's style of negotiation. Is there a right or wrong answer to whether ones perceptions are correct on this subject? I don't know but if you feel he's kowtowing than who am I say you are wrong.

[sherr]

On the face of it, I'm pretty sure that if either camp were presented with damaging information about the other than they would have run with it. The question then becomes what is illegal and did either the Clinton camp or Trump camp actually break the law.

You're sure Clinton "would have" done the same thing (with no evidence), so now the real question is whether "either camp" broke the law? Please.

I guess we'll never now about Clinton's campaign in particular, since they didn't have the opportunity to prove you wrong. But your imaginings do not bear the same weight as what actually happened. We also know that in a similar situation the Gore campaign quickly turned over such "help" to the FBI.

It's also not like Trump's campaign was just sitting minding it's own business and then were surprised by a Russian ambush as they thrust a file of information into their hands. We know that many people in Trumps campaign were actively seeking out Russian collusion.

then the Clinton camp is guilty as well when they paid foreign operatives (including Russian) for dirt on Trump.

Wrong again. Clinton's campaign hired a former British Intelligence agent to do some research, and yes he did talk to some people who were Russian. That is fundamentally and obviously different from colluding with a foreign government, especially one as traditionally hostile to the country as Russia, especially one which has an active disinformation and propaganda campaign that indents to interfere in our elections.

I don't see how anyone, conservative or not, could honestly equate the two. Of course if they are getting their news from an organization who's goal is to misinform and twist and excuse the behavior of Republicans at all cost then I guess I can see it...

It's also fascinating how quickly you've jumped from "no evidence of collusion" to "both sides did would have done it" and "maybe it wasn't illegal".

Point number two is simply sarcasm on Trump's part. It's poor humor, but nonetheless it's sarcasm.

Yeah, and "won't anyone rid me of this troublesome priest" is just sarcasm too, until someone does it.

[GuitarStv]

Point number two is simply sarcasm on Trump's part. It's poor humor, but nonetheless it's sarcasm. It's just a cheap way for Trump to highlight that Clinton permanently deleted 33,000 e-mails after they were subpoenaed. How in the hell this isn't obstruction of justice is beyond me.

Do you have proof that what you're claiming happened, happened?  I only ask because I seem to remember an investigation by the FBI that cleared Clinton of these charges.

[Kris]

Versatile coincidentally parrots many Republican talking points almost to the letter. Which is interesting.

And his source, an offshoot of Real Clear Politics, has a mixed record of factual reporting.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-politics/.

[Davnasty]

Point number two is simply sarcasm on Trump's part. It's poor humor, but nonetheless it's sarcasm. It's just a cheap way for Trump to highlight that Clinton permanently deleted 33,000 e-mails after they were subpoenaed. How in the hell this isn't obstruction of justice is beyond me.

Do you have proof that what you're claiming happened, happened?  I only ask because I seem to remember an investigation by the FBI that cleared Clinton of these charges.

Here's a good review of the timeline

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/

Technically the emails were deleted after the subpoena* was given however the direction to delete the emails was given to the company managing the server by Clinton's aide 4 months earlier, which was before the story of the personal email server was known.

Also relevant, some of the deleted emails were recovered, reviewed, and it was determined that the deletion of these emails was not done intentionally to cover anything up.

*The subpoena called for emails related to the Libya incident, not all emails.

[Johnez]

Fair enough. I could have picked better examples but was in a rush. But the overall point is I think the Trump opposition does itself a disservice when having the same level of regardless of the severity of stupid. I can see how others would start tuning it out in a boy-who-cries-wolf sort of way.

I agree that too much attention is given to dumb things, Tim Apple (lol), "bigly," Melania's "I don't care" jacket, etc-in a way it reminds me of the way the media picked on Bush for his legendary "Bushisms." You say the examples you picked are bad, but they bring up a good point-our national discussion over Trump is destructive and simply causes both sides to dig in their heals and stick to their guy instead of actually discussing the important issues, and important issues get ignored, or lumped in with the other BS when brought up. "Oh, you call it collusion, but you just really hate our "Orange" president, so I'm not going to hear whatever you have to say."

[Versatile]

On the face of it, I'm pretty sure that if either camp were presented with damaging information about the other than they would have run with it. The question then becomes what is illegal and did either the Clinton camp or Trump camp actually break the law.

You're sure Clinton "would have" done the same thing (with no evidence), so now the real question is whether "either camp" broke the law? Please.

I guess we'll never now about Clinton's campaign in particular, since they didn't have the opportunity to prove you wrong. But your imaginings do not bear the same weight as what actually happened. We also know that in a similar situation the Gore campaign quickly turned over such "help" to the FBI.

It's also not like Trump's campaign was just sitting minding it's own business and then were surprised by a Russian ambush as they thrust a file of information into their hands. We know that many people in Trumps campaign were actively seeking out Russian collusion.

then the Clinton camp is guilty as well when they paid foreign operatives (including Russian) for dirt on Trump.

Wrong again. Clinton's campaign hired a former British Intelligence agent to do some research, and yes he did talk to some people who were Russian. That is fundamentally and obviously different from colluding with a foreign government, especially one as traditionally hostile to the country as Russia, especially one which has an active disinformation and propaganda campaign that indents to interfere in our elections.

I don't see how anyone, conservative or not, could honestly equate the two. Of course if they are getting their news from an organization who's goal is to misinform and twist and excuse the behavior of Republicans at all cost then I guess I can see it...

It's also fascinating how quickly you've jumped from "no evidence of collusion" to "both sides did would have done it" and "maybe it wasn't illegal".

Point number two is simply sarcasm on Trump's part. It's poor humor, but nonetheless it's sarcasm.

Yeah, and "won't anyone rid me of this troublesome priest" is just sarcasm too, until someone does it.

I'll go into a little more depth tonight when I have more free time. But I want you to understand that my goal is not to say "I am right and you are wrong" but that there are valid reasons why some people believe differently than you.

[Versatile]

Point number two is simply sarcasm on Trump's part. It's poor humor, but nonetheless it's sarcasm. It's just a cheap way for Trump to highlight that Clinton permanently deleted 33,000 e-mails after they were subpoenaed. How in the hell this isn't obstruction of justice is beyond me.

Do you have proof that what you're claiming happened, happened?  I only ask because I seem to remember an investigation by the FBI that cleared Clinton of these charges.

What specifically? And I have some things to say about our Dept. of Justice.

[Versatile]

Versatile coincidentally parrots many Republican talking points almost to the letter. Which is interesting.

And his source, an offshoot of Real Clear Politics, has a mixed record of factual reporting.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-politics/.

Yes, you should never trust a news source. I'm glad you brought that up.

I have yet to encounter a news source without bias, some so much so that I will instantly discount what they have to say. If someone quotes MSNBC or ZeroHedge for example, than I know they haven't done their homework.

With that said, your site has RCP pegged at right of central, and I don't find that objectionable. No more than a left of central site. They are both important.

Lastly, you kind of hinted that I am just parroting Republican talking points. Therefore, discount? I want to state again that even if I were a Republican, which I am not, I should still be welcome on this inclusive site. If we discuss these issues enough at depth, I think you will see that partisanship does not concern me. Do you know who I think is the worst president in my lifetime? George W. That doesn't make me a very good Republican now does it?

Let's discuss ideas and stop with the disparaging, shall we?

[Kris]

Versatile coincidentally parrots many Republican talking points almost to the letter. Which is interesting.

And his source, an offshoot of Real Clear Politics, has a mixed record of factual reporting.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-politics/.

Yes, you should never trust a news source. I'm glad you brought that up.

I have yet to encounter a news source without bias, some so much so that I will instantly discount what they have to say. If someone quotes MSNBC or ZeroHedge for example, than I know they haven't done their homework.

With that said, your site has RCP pegged at right of central, and I don't find that objectionable. No more than a left of central site. They are both important.

Lastly, you kind of hinted that I am just parroting Republican talking points. Therefore, discount? I want to state again that even if I were a Republican, which I am not, I should still be welcome on this inclusive site. If we discuss these issues enough at depth, I think you will see that partisanship does not concern me. Do you know who I think is the worst president in my lifetime? George W. That doesn't make me a very good Republican now does it?

Let's discuss ideas and stop with the disparaging, shall we?

You notice I did not say anything about RCP's political bias. I said they have a mixed record of factual reporting.

And frankly, your post mirrored Republican talking points quite closely. Which I pointed out, because you claim to not be a Republican, but your remarks are often indistinguishable from the Republican line.

[sherr]

I'll go into a little more depth tonight when I have more free time. But I want you to understand that my goal is not to say "I am right and you are wrong" but that there are valid reasons why some people believe differently than you.

That's fine but you haven't demonstrated any valid reasons yet.

I'm well aware that you can be a Trumper if you believe a bunch of lies and conspiracy theories and fall prey to false equivalence and intentionally twisted propaganda. Painfully aware; my own parents have fallen for it.

That doesn't mean that there are valid reasons. Even if you thought that Hillary would be a worse president than Trump, that still doesn't give people an excuse to dismiss all the anti-american / illegal / immoral / straight-up-evil stuff he's done. Or to bury their heads in the sand and mindlessly parrot back "no evidence of collusion" when Trump tells them to.

[bacchi]

The disapproval vote is coming up shortly.

There's a lot of talk about changing the emergency act. If the disapproval is not veto proof, and it won't be, wiil the House agree to a change in the emergency act if it doesn't affect the current one?

[sherr]

The disapproval vote is coming up shortly.

There's a lot of talk about changing the emergency act. If the disapproval is not veto proof, and it won't be, wiil the House agree to a change in the emergency act if it doesn't affect the current one?

Does it matter? Even if they did, the Senate would not pass it with a veto-proof majority any more than they won't pass the disapproval resolution with a veto-proof majority.

I can't see the Democratic House getting very pumped up and rallying behind a new bill that a) won't become law and b) doesn't address the current problem.

[bacchi]

The disapproval vote is coming up shortly.

There's a lot of talk about changing the emergency act. If the disapproval is not veto proof, and it won't be, wiil the House agree to a change in the emergency act if it doesn't affect the current one?

Does it matter? Even if they did, the Senate would not pass it with a veto-proof majority any more than they won't pass the disapproval resolution with a veto-proof majority.

I can't see the Democratic House getting very pumped up and rallying behind a new bill that a) won't become law and b) doesn't address the current problem.

You don't think a change in the law can get a veto-proof majority? Even the Republicans that voted against the disapproval know that it'll be used when a Dem becomes President. Climate change and guns come to mind as emergencies.

Only ~14 Dem Senators need to agree that the Act needs to changed.

Results are in: 59-41 for the disapproval.

[GuitarStv]

Point number two is simply sarcasm on Trump's part. It's poor humor, but nonetheless it's sarcasm. It's just a cheap way for Trump to highlight that Clinton permanently deleted 33,000 e-mails after they were subpoenaed. How in the hell this isn't obstruction of justice is beyond me.

Do you have proof that what you're claiming happened, happened?  I only ask because I seem to remember an investigation by the FBI that cleared Clinton of these charges.

What specifically? And I have some things to say about our Dept. of Justice.

Specifically?  What you claimed.

You claimed that Clinton permanently deleted 33,000 emails after they were subpoenaed in order to obstruct justice.


My understanding is much what Dabnabsty posted.
- Emails were deleted after they were subpoenaed, but not because of anything that Clinton said . . . because the guy in charge of them had forgotten to do so earlier and panicked.
- An investigation was done that concluded there was no intent to obstruct justice.
- The number 33,000 is also incorrect, there were fewer emails.

That is quite different than your claim, so I'm asking you if you have any evidence to support the things you said.

[Roadrunner53]

What is the criteria for an emergency declaration? Shouldn't there be a check off list indicating what is a true emergency? A true military invasion, a bomb hit, a fleet of submarines invading our ports, airplane air attack, germ warfare? Something like a wall, which might be helpful but not an emergency, should not be treated as an emergency. Instead, why not plan to spend so much per year to get the job done. Since, Mexico is not paying for it. Why isn't Trump being held accountable for that lie? Then he forces the wall down American's throats that we have to pay for it. At all his rally's he had every one chant "who is going to pay for the wall".

Well, the Senate blocked Trumps declaration, now he will veto it. So what is the point of voting if he can still get his way by vetoing it?

[sherr]

The disapproval vote is coming up shortly.

There's a lot of talk about changing the emergency act. If the disapproval is not veto proof, and it won't be, wiil the House agree to a change in the emergency act if it doesn't affect the current one?

Does it matter? Even if they did, the Senate would not pass it with a veto-proof majority any more than they won't pass the disapproval resolution with a veto-proof majority.

I can't see the Democratic House getting very pumped up and rallying behind a new bill that a) won't become law and b) doesn't address the current problem.

You don't think a change in the law can get a veto-proof majority? Even the Republicans that voted against the disapproval know that it'll be used when a Dem becomes President. Climate change and guns come to mind as emergencies.

Only ~14 Dem Senators need to agree that the Act needs to changed.

Results are in: 59-41 for the disapproval.

I think that if the Republicans are trying to CYA on their failure to override Trumps veto on the disapproval resolution, then yes of course the Democrats aren't going to be rushing to help them. If they *do* hold up the disapproval resolution with a veto-proof majority, which they would if they actually cared about the rule of law as much as they're trying to claim, then I think they would have no problem getting Democrats on board.

But the Republicans didn't manage to come up with a veto-proof majority (or even a majority in-party), because they don't care about the rule-of-law and this is clearly an attempt at "fake national emergencies for me but not for thee", and so they won't get the Democratic support they need.

That's basically also the opinion of the far-right rag Washington Examiner too, except they are not specific about the "overriding Trumps veto" bit.

[sherr]

What is the criteria for an emergency declaration? Shouldn't there be a check off list indicating what is a true emergency? A true military invasion, a bomb hit, a fleet of submarines invading our ports, airplane air attack, germ warfare?

There aren't any criteria, partially for the valid reason that you can't predict every problem you might face in the future. There have been lots of emergencies with every modern president, though none so obviously fake and political as Trump's wall.

Well, the Senate blocked Trumps declaration, now he will veto it. So what is the point of voting if he can still get his way by vetoing it?

Well theoretically the Congress could overturn Trump's veto, but that would require a full third of Republicans to have a spine and do the right thing.

[bacchi]

I think that if the Republicans are trying to CYA on their failure to override Trumps veto on the disapproval resolution, then yes of course the Democrats aren't going to be rushing to help them. If they *do* hold up the disapproval resolution with a veto-proof majority, which they would if they actually cared about the rule of law as much as they're trying to claim, then I think they would have no problem getting Democrats on board.

But the Republicans didn't manage to come up with a veto-proof majority (or even a majority in-party), because they don't care about the rule-of-law and this is clearly an attempt at "fake national emergencies for me but not for thee", and so they won't get the Democratic support they need.

That's basically also the opinion of the far-right rag Washington Examiner too, except they are not specific about the "overriding Trumps veto" bit.

You're right but it's just...mystifying.

The Republicans that voted against the disapproval are either

1) Stupid or short-sighted;
2) Assuming they'll get a veto-proof majority in the Senate AND House for the next Dem President;
3) Really do want to abdicate responsibility to the President (and this is helped by Kavanaugh's appointment).

If even the Washington Examiner can see this, what's the deal?

It'll be good for the climate and the Green New Deal but it's bad leadership. (Maybe I should send my Senators a thank you note for allowing future "emergencies.")

[Kris]

Lord, I am tired of Trump threatening violence if he doesn't get his way.

In an interview with Breitbart today:

"I actually think that the people on the right are tougher, but they don’t play it tougher. Okay? I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad."

[talltexan]

Kris-
thank you for bringing up that Trump quote about the support of the Military and the Law Enforcement. When I first learned of it, I reviewed the quote on Breitbart (which, yes, I do often check because I can at least appreciate the bias), and the larger quote put it in the context not of Trump being supported in some type of unconstitutional Civil War, but rather in the context of Trump's position regarding providing Federal funds to entities whose employees are engaged in certain kinds of speech.

Link to Breitbart here: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/12/exclusive-trump-on-campus-free-speech-executive-order-were-going-to-do-a-very-big-number-probably-next-week/

For what it's worth, I happen to think Trump's position is wrong here still, but it's at least within the bounds of conservative opposition to these entities.

[Kris]

Kris-
thank you for bringing up that Trump quote about the support of the Military and the Law Enforcement. When I first learned of it, I reviewed the quote on Breitbart (which, yes, I do often check because I can at least appreciate the bias), and the larger quote put it in the context not of Trump being supported in some type of unconstitutional Civil War, but rather in the context of Trump's position regarding providing Federal funds to entities whose employees are engaged in certain kinds of speech.

Link to Breitbart here: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/12/exclusive-trump-on-campus-free-speech-executive-order-were-going-to-do-a-very-big-number-probably-next-week/

For what it's worth, I happen to think Trump's position is wrong here still, but it's at least within the bounds of conservative opposition to these entities.

Actually, I had read the Breitbart article before I posted. (I don't regularly read Breitbart for the same reason I don't regularly ingest dog vomit, but when it is the source of something, I do tend to go read the article.) But thanks for posting the link.

[nereo]

Well, the Senate blocked Trumps declaration, now he will veto it. So what is the point of voting if he can still get his way by vetoing it?

Well theoretically the Congress could overturn Trump's veto, but that would require a full third of Republicans to have a spine and do the right thing.

I think the vote could wind up being important in another way - namely as a factor in the numerous legal challenges to this emergency declaration that have already been filed and will almost certainly wind up in from of SCOTUS. 

In effect SCOTUS will weigh whether congress must have a 2/3rds majority to act as a check on this or any future president (a very high bar typically reserved for things like legislation drafted by the house - not unilateral decisions), in addition to the question of whether an emergency is defined solely by whatever the president says it is.  This vote challenges both of those notions.  Whether or not it will make a difference in the ultimate rulings I have no idea. 

[bacchi]

Well, the Senate blocked Trumps declaration, now he will veto it. So what is the point of voting if he can still get his way by vetoing it?

Well theoretically the Congress could overturn Trump's veto, but that would require a full third of Republicans to have a spine and do the right thing.

I think the vote could wind up being important in another way - namely as a factor in the numerous legal challenges to this emergency declaration that have already been filed and will almost certainly wind up in from of SCOTUS. 

In effect SCOTUS will weigh whether congress must have a 2/3rds majority to act as a check on this or any future president (a very high bar typically reserved for things like legislation drafted by the house - not unilateral decisions), in addition to the question of whether an emergency is defined solely by whatever the president says it is.  This vote challenges both of those notions.  Whether or not it will make a difference in the ultimate rulings I have no idea.

The original law required only a majority decision and a SC case determined that 2/3rds was required. I doubt they'll go against that precedent.

There are some morons in Congress but Graham and Cornyn aren't in that group. Maybe they're depending on the SC to decide the "fake national emergencies for me but not for thee" issue in the Republicans' favor. Ie., the wall is an emergency but climate change is not.

[Kris]

Welp, Lindsay Graham blocked a Senate vote on the resolution calling For Mueller report to be made public.

He'd better hope there's not a god, because that man has sold his soul to the Devil.

[Glenstache]

Welp, Lindsay Graham blocked a Senate vote on the resolution calling For Mueller report to be made public.

He'd better hope there's not a god, because that man has sold his soul to the Devil.

And the House just voted 420-0 in a non-binding resolution to say that the Mueller report be made public.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/us/politics/mueller-report-public.html

Interesting times.

[nereo]

Welp, Lindsay Graham blocked a Senate vote on the resolution calling For Mueller report to be made public.

He'd better hope there's not a god, because that man has sold his soul to the Devil.

As I underrstand it, the resolution was largely symbolic as it had no way to force Barr to make the report public.  So in a largely symbolic gesture Graham has blocked another largely symbolic gesture.

I agree he's given up all moral high ground in his unfettered support of DJT (a man he once described as a "Race-Baiting, Xenophobic Bigot", and asked on twitter "Name one sports team, university, publicly-held company, etc. that would accept a person like [Trump] as their standard bearer?).

[Kris]

Welp, Lindsay Graham blocked a Senate vote on the resolution calling For Mueller report to be made public.

He'd better hope there's not a god, because that man has sold his soul to the Devil.

As I underrstand it, the resolution was largely symbolic as it had no way to force Barr to make the report public.  So in a largely symbolic gesture Graham has blocked another largely symbolic gesture.

I agree he's given up all moral high ground in his unfettered support of DJT (a man he once described as a "Race-Baiting, Xenophobic Bigot", and asked on twitter "Name one sports team, university, publicly-held company, etc. that would accept a person like [Trump] as their standard bearer?).

Yep. I mean, that’s what resolutions are. But the fact that Graham is so far inside Trump’s colon that he blocks even this thing that only matters a little is proof positive that he has completely sold himself and is at this point irredeemable.

I don’t know how he can sleep at night. Then again,, I think that about a lot of Republicans these days. But he’s  in the top ten of “worst of the worst.”

[MDM]

And his source, an offshoot of Real Clear Politics, has a mixed record of factual reporting.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-politics/.

You notice I did not say anything about RCP's political bias. I said they have a mixed record of factual reporting.

A few quotes from that mediabiasfactcheck article:

'In review, the website features selected political news stories and op-eds from various news publications in addition to commentary from its own contributors. Though their own political views lean conservative, the site’s founders say their goal is to give readers “ideological diversity” in its commentary section. In reviewing their political news and opinions there are slightly more that are published from right leaning sources, however both sides are represented. Real Clear Politics is perhaps best known for their RCP Polling Average, which combines all polling data to create a statistical average."

RCP is pretty good about posting opposing viewpoints in juxtaposed links.  E.g., from this morning,
Dems' Civil War Means Trump Will Win in 2020 James Robbins, USA Today
The Democrats' Civil War Is Over Before It Began Jack Shafer, Politico


"Most of the news content on Real Clear Politics is aggregated from other sources such as: Washington Post, New York Post, Salon, Fox News, The Federalist and National Review. Several of the sources used by Real Clear Politics are listed as Mixed factual due to failed fact checks."

Perhaps every single one of those sources has at one time or another failed a "fact check."  Not sure then what "Mixed factual" means in this context.


"In reviewing original Real Clear Politics articles, there is a right leaning bias in wording and story selection such as [one example given]."

The top two story selections as of this writing are
Pelosi's Wise Move; Israel's Multifaceted Wall; ...
Trump's Fantasy Budget

That doesn't seem a "right leaning bias."

[Versatile]

On the face of it, I'm pretty sure that if either camp were presented with damaging information about the other than they would have run with it. The question then becomes what is illegal and did either the Clinton camp or Trump camp actually break the law.

You're sure Clinton "would have" done the same thing (with no evidence), so now the real question is whether "either camp" broke the law? Please.

I guess we'll never now about Clinton's campaign in particular, since they didn't have the opportunity to prove you wrong. But your imaginings do not bear the same weight as what actually happened. We also know that in a similar situation the Gore campaign quickly turned over such "help" to the FBI.

It's also not like Trump's campaign was just sitting minding it's own business and then were surprised by a Russian ambush as they thrust a file of information into their hands. We know that many people in Trumps campaign were actively seeking out Russian collusion.

then the Clinton camp is guilty as well when they paid foreign operatives (including Russian) for dirt on Trump.

Wrong again. Clinton's campaign hired a former British Intelligence agent to do some research, and yes he did talk to some people who were Russian. That is fundamentally and obviously different from colluding with a foreign government, especially one as traditionally hostile to the country as Russia, especially one which has an active disinformation and propaganda campaign that indents to interfere in our elections.

I don't see how anyone, conservative or not, could honestly equate the two. Of course if they are getting their news from an organization who's goal is to misinform and twist and excuse the behavior of Republicans at all cost then I guess I can see it...

It's also fascinating how quickly you've jumped from "no evidence of collusion" to "both sides did would have done it" and "maybe it wasn't illegal".

Point number two is simply sarcasm on Trump's part. It's poor humor, but nonetheless it's sarcasm.

Yeah, and "won't anyone rid me of this troublesome priest" is just sarcasm too, until someone does it.

I think you need to stick with what I've actually said.

Don Jr. and company had a meeting with a Russian lawyer. There are several versions of what occurred and as of now it's mainly speculation on what actually transpired. I am hoping Mueller will clear the air. If it is proven that in fact they met up to trade information on the Clinton campaign, then it needs to be determined where exactly and if a crime was committed. That's all I am saying. Let's see what Mueller comes up with.

My other point was that Clinton hired an ex-spy who is British who allegedly gleaned all of his information from Russians. We have also learned that the vast majority of his reports were entirely fictional and worse led to FISA warrants under very dubious credibility. Which led to spying on Carter Page and indirectly Trump and provided a basis for opening the Mueller investigation by a handful of players that have had their careers ruined because of their bias. Think about that for a minute. Like the Trump example, I am eagerly awaiting Muellers report to see where the facts lie, because there is a tremendous amount of speculation.

Now as far as what I believe at this point : I believe both camps would have welcomed damaging information on the other. I believe both sides would have turned askance at the source. Do you think Clinton cared where the information from Steele came from? Do you think Trump cared who leaked the DNC e-mails to Wiki-leaks? Of course not.

If you want to cry collusion, or Russian interference, go ahead, but stop being angry when the other side uses the same dubious speculation as a basis for perceived fact.

The Senate Bi-Partisan Intelligence Committeee has recently found NO direct evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians. I fully suspect Mueller has found no such information either after two years. But hey, I could be wrong. But I am speculating, and we know what can happen with that.

One last issue:

I don't see how anyone, conservative or not, could honestly equate the two. Of course if they are getting their news from an organization who's goal is to misinform and twist and excuse the behavior of Republicans at all cost then I guess I can see it...

Everybody is getting shitty and biased information. The news media in this country is a national disgrace. They have caused more harm and divided this country like no other. You want to look for a traitor? Turn on the news.

[sherr]

My other point was that Clinton hired an ex-spy who is British who allegedly gleaned all of his information from Russians. We have also learned that the vast majority of his reports were entirely fictional and worse led to FISA warrants under very dubious credibility.

You are a damned dirty liar. Name one thing in the Steele Dossier that was proven to be fictional.

MOD EDIT: Please don't call people names. Rule #1

Which led to spying on Carter Page and indirectly Trump and provided a basis for opening the Mueller investigation by a handful of players that have had their careers ruined because of their bias.

Carter Page in particular may not have been proven guilty of anything, but the "handful of players"  who's lives were "ruined" by the court system where because of the multitude of laws that they broke, not because of their "bias".

Like the Trump example, I am eagerly awaiting Muellers report to see where the facts lie, because there is a tremendous amount of speculation.

From "The Mueller investigation has revealed no evidence of collusion" to "Hey let's not jump to conclusions based on the many guilty please the Mueller investigation has managed to extract, we have to wait for the final report guys!" The truth is already out there to anyone who cares to look for it.

[snip another bunch of lies, unjustified speculation about whether Hillary would have been equally as traitorous, and "both sides are just as bad"]

The Senate Bi-Partisan Intelligence Committeee has recently found NO direct evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians. I fully suspect Mueller has found no such information either after two years. But hey, I could be wrong. But I am speculating, and we know what can happen with that.

The Senate (controlled by Republicans) "Bi-Partisan" Intelligence Committee has found no direct evidence... right, nice bit of spin there. Because of course only a video of Trump confessing would be "direct" evidence for someone who constantly operates through flunkies.

Everybody is getting shitty and biased information. The news media in this country is a national disgrace. They have caused more harm and divided this country like no other. You want to look for a traitor? Turn on the news.

Right, the old Fox News "the mainstream media (somehow we are not included) are the bad guys" / Trumpian "people who report on me are the enemies of the public" line. I'm not saying NPR are angels incarnate or anything, but they sure are a hell of a lot more Patriotic and American that lying parrots like you.

Way to not actually address anything substantive that was brought up between your initial post and now, and instead just repeat your talking points again in a slightly different phrasing. Propaganda-spewing intellectually-dishonest-debaters like you are the enemies of the public, not journalists who trend a little too much towards click-bait titles.

At this point it's very clear what you are to everyone who cares to look. When the mods hit you with the "100 posts not in Off Topic for new posters" rule you immediately started spamming every conversation you could find with low-effort nonsense so that you could rush back here to Trump's defense. Don't worry, I'll go ahead and flag this conversation to the mods and be done. Mods, please do something.

[sol]

Wait, are we actually arguing with an account that was only created to argue about Donald Trump?

I mean I get that we're off-topic here, but when someone shows up and says "I'm only here to argue with you" that's usually a good sign that you shouldn't bother.  Seriously, who finds people on the internet that they disagree with and then decides to create a profile and then bypass the filter system just to argue with those people?  I mean besides from professional "activists" of the kind that Russia has used to such great effect, because I think we've all seen enough of that already.