One of my main reasons for coming back here was to hopefully get some intelligent discussion about issues and Facebook doesn't deliver. So... Here's what I want to discuss at the moment.
Following the Mueller report, it appears to my reading that a number of indictable actions have occurred. Mueller's own statements seem to indicate that he did not feel capable of pursuing these in his role due to the Justice department's policy not to indict a sitting president, further indicating that impeachment would be the better course.
Congress seems to be reluctant to impeach as, if the Senate didn't get on board, things could look very bad for Democrats (conversely, things could look very bad for Republicans... Anyone want to guess which way that would go?).
So, you have a situation where the President has fairly clearly committed actions that would result in any other person having to go through the legal process and be found guilty, or not, but it's not happening because impeachment is a political petard that Democrats don't want to be hoisted with, and there's a policy for the Justice Department not to indict a sitting President.
A policy not to indict a sitting President.
Yes, I'm intentionally repeating that because it is just crazy in itself. I believe the justification for the policy coming about was that it would undermine the executive branch's ability to perform its functions.
But it's a policy. As a Lawyer, I've been told by many persnickety judges "we don't care about the policy Miss Muffy, policy is not law and is not determinative of the issue". Accepted. However, when it's the justice department's policy not to take action against an individual because of an office an individual holds, a ridiculous situation arises. Really, the whole thing is retarded beyond belief.
It *may* be the case that the policy writers envisaged sitting Presidents would have the decency to unseat themselves should such a situation arise, they probably never envisioned a President quite so deficient in moral fibre as Trump. However, that is speculation on my part.
Legally, it's problematic. The policy makers talk about the executive branch's constitutional functions and violating the constitutional separation of powers. This has me scratching my head as, superficially, they may have a point, but how, in any way, shape or form, is having "constitutional immunity" for the President constitutional? I don't see how the constitution can be read as allowing the President to be immune from prosecution for crimes while he holds office.
If your legal experts are correct, Trump's best move is to never give up office. Ever. While that in itself might be a criminal act, apparently he can't be prosecuted for it!
I'm really interested in you 'merican's thoughts on this (and for the sake of argument, pretend it was Obama that was in this situation if you're a Trump fan, or whatever... Just take your preferences out of it and look at the pure issue of having a criminal President that the controlling party won't impeach and the justice department wont indict... And tell me where that particular line of logic take you). Should he shoot his Democratic rivals in the face and make them go away, give his Republican buddies big pay res to guarantee they don't impeach, hold office for as long as he holds breath because the JUSTICE department has a POLICY not to touch him???
Sorry, but this one really, really gets up my nose.
quote:Originally posted by fubar What you are witnessing is......
I saw this coming years ago. Oddly enough I feel compelled to leave the saftey of NZ and return to the shitshow, almost as if its my patriotic duty. I'd hate for my kids have to deal with The Anarchy without me.
quote:Originally posted by fubar What is even scarier is that conservatives and liberals will read the previous sentence and immediately think I belong in the camp opposite theirs. Both sides are hysterical panty-wetters.
I'm glad you said that as, as an outside observer, I've yet to identify as either R or D as from my perspective they both suck. However, I am certain that regardless of whether Trump had run as a democrat or a republican, I'd still see him as epitomising everything bad about America rather than a realistic candidate to MAGA. However, I also accept that Hillary is an unlikeable cunt.
That aside, I do think there are prudential reasons to vote for the Democrats in the current circumstances, but I see that as being a bit of a hail mary, and not one I'd care to place a wager on
What is really funny about conservatives voting for Trump is that he is on video from the 80s or 90s saying that if he ever ran for POTUS, he'd run as a republican because their constituents are so imbecilic.
That might have been his only real, self-made success.
I suppose you have to give him credit for pulling it off. If you watch that video of Obama roasting him, you can literally see the moment where his tiny little brain decides to settle the vendetta by running for President. And despite the extensive news articles, videos and websites devoted to documenting his extensive dirty dealings, (all freely available prior to the elections), he still managed to convince half of America that he'd drain the swamp and look after the little guy and that his failed businesses, failure to pay contractors, failed marriages, affairs, draft dodging, tax avoidance, inability to quote scripture, sketchy Russian and Saudi ties, 1500+ lawsuits and numerous rape allegations, didn't prevent him from being the stand up Christian guy of good moral character and sound business acumen that the conservatives would have you believe is the reason they voted for him. It's kind of impressive once you stop cringing.
Flash forward a couple of years and he's (still) knee deep in dodgy underhanded shit, cosying up to Putin and Un while simultaneously tweeting threats of war, pissing the rest of the world off, hating on everyone except white supremacists and anti-abortionists, paying off hookers, refusing to disclose shit that should be disclosed, inadvertently disclosing shit that shouldn't be disclosed, surrounding himself with any sycophant he can find that hasn't already been put in prison, using trickle-down economics and starting trade wars.... and people still haven't worked out he's a lemon. It makes you wonder if that's really fluoride they're putting in the drinking water.
Thank goodness Republicans of old had the good sense to propose and enact the 22nd Amendment, so the fucker can only serve 2 terms.
The primary problem with American politics, as I see it, is its capitalist nature. Corporations fund elections and lobby politicians (and write law, basically). I'm not sure why everyone is surprised corporate interests are so thoroughly supported by the government.
I'm not remotely surprised. What surprises me is the apathy about it (but then I continuously assume people know stuff they should know, when the evidence would suggest the contrary - not sure how to break that habit).
History teaches that the USA moved away from laissez-faire capitalism early last century. I don't think that's true. I think the creature from Jekyll Island was born around then, there was some clever PR and it's just what we're told so we don't question the non-existent money issue too closely. But I openly admit I err on the side of paranoia when it comes to conspiracy theories. I also think that Trump is intimately familiar with the creature, and has worked out how to make the non-existent money issue work in his favour. It's political alchemy and it's quite probably supporting the US economy. It's also quite probably a`super bubble that it's in no-one's best interests to pop.
* The above sounds like gibberish if you're not familiar with the creature from Jekyll Island and the creation of the Fed... hope you are as it's long and boring to explain. I hate economics..
** The above probably sounds like gibberish regardless. I'm trying to express some fairly loose suspicions I have and not doing so very clearly. My basic poiint is that money and politics are inextricably entwined and we're at the point where we can't change that without blowing up the economy.
The shooter was an australian. Blame cruncles. But... NZ is doing something else entirely. After the shooting we were all encouraged by the PM to wear hijab's and set an hour aside while muslim prayer music played over the national radio. Then they started prosecuting people for sharing *that* video, and now the PM has started her own little crusade to limit freedom of speech, which I see is catching on in other places too... so yeah, I'm not hugely impressed with NZ either at the moment. We also have MMP, so Jacinda wasn't even really elected. National got more votes but couldn't form a coalition to secure a majority. Labour stepped in and made some dodgy tradeoffs to secure a majority coalition... bleh. But hey, at least I can still abort my fetus here.
All I will say is that Trump will not be there is nothing clear about any of this and Trump will not be indicted nor impeached, he will be reelected in 2020, and the next decade will be referred to as the 21st century's antebellum period. That's about all I have to say on the subject.
Impeachment is a political tool so I find it difficult to take it seriously anyway, but no one should be above the law, especially not a President. I mean really, America's going to have an entrenched constitution with an out clause for wannabe dictators? On what planet does that make sense?
When he called the press the 'enemy of the people", it sent shivers down my spine because I know the historical significance of such a statement. It's a total outrage coming from a president and it's beyond the pale. He needs to be impeached for many other reasons so future generations will see our respect for the law and not allowing a president to think he can be above the law. The Senate won't convict him but that shouldn't stop him from being impeached. Being impeached doesn't necessarily mean that a president will be thrown out of office. I know you all know this.
Right now the American press is guilty of journalistic malpractice IMHO. Most are in the tank for the Democrats and don't even attempt to hide it anymore. Do you consider that being an ally to the American people? I don't,band I think that's what Trump was pointing out, badly I might add.
The fact he doesn't seem to realise his words have consequences and need to be chosen with a bit more care is just another reason he's not a fit president. Aren't you just a little embarrassed, or is this one of those Party before common sense things?
It's already on in a cold version - wherever you go in the media landscape, it's merkin vs. merkin locked in dramatic (and obviously moronic, but you can't tell them that, because they are proud like little boys) ideological combat.
So I watched the entire Mueller testimony and it was a bit of a snooze, but has not changed my mind about my understanding of the situation at all, except the Republicans offered the additional ridiculous suggestion that, citing Janet Reno, the report never should have been released in the first place if the President wasn't going to be indicted (so, not only can you not indict a sitting president, you can't write about the stuff you're not indicting him for!)
Mueller is very obviously saying (ok, maybe not so obviously as there is a little legalese) that there was evidence in the report of a number of crimes that are theoretically indictable, but his hands are tied regarding saying whether they should or would result in a successful indictment. ... This brings me back to the whole no one is above the law issue. And round it goes. Fucking stupid. *pitches logic fail fit... foams at the mouth a bit...etc* All the stupid is hurting my brain.