Trump

[shockmonster]

I considered doing a response to each scandal, but it's just not worth it.

Here's the simplest, lowest common denominator: Obama denied involvement and/or wrongdoing in every "scandal" that occurred during his presidency. Even if they were at the level of taking assistance from a foreign government (and they weren't), he still denied involvement and/or wrongdoing. That might seem like kind of a silly thing to hang your hat on, but it allows supporters to say "yeah, innocent until proven guilty." And he was never proven guilty."

You allowed the media to continue their "love affair" with Obama, and not spending any media time on his scandals digging up wrong doing (we haven't even mentioned possible deals with Clinton on the tarmac, etc.), where you think it is fine that they spend 90% of their time on Trump's indiscretions and rarely mention positive reforms or discuss the immigration debate (and other issues) in a fair way showing both sides to the story.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Hillary wasn't elected, so what she did doesnt matter. That said, had Hillary been elected, everyone screaming about Russia would have nothing to say about Hillary and the Ukraine. No media would be digging, it would be over. There in lies why I'm sick of this, this is nothing new, it's not unique to Trump. Democrats have done the same, every election.

That's just it. The media wouldn't be screaming like this with Hillary, but people like you and me would be disappointed in them that they let her off the hook.

I'm all about the media giving Trump the scrutiny he deserves, and then you and I can scream at the media when they let up once a Dem returns to the White House. Yes, they are ridiculously inconsistent, but in one sense, it has been good to see they can still be critical and do investigative work. I want more of that, not less.

[shockmonster]

I'm all about the media giving Trump the scrutiny he deserves, and then you and I can scream at the media when they let up once a Dem returns to the White House. Yes, they are ridiculously inconsistent, but in one sense, it has been good to see they can still be critical and do investigative work. I want more of that, not less.

No argument from me on what you said. The only thing that is happening is that the "one sided media" is in a lot of ways similar to the "state run news" that comes out of dictatorships like Russia, except that when the Democrats are out of power, the media elites "turns on the state". Right now, we have the elites in our media and the elites in our universities teaming with the Democrat party. We need to have a "two sided" debate or discussion.

The Republicans have legitimate points (on immigration, tax reforms, etc.) that are lost and without the two sided debate, a democracy will whither away.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

This is my problem right now, though. People are far too focused on whether or not it is legal. While you're not arguing that it is or is not legal, you still believe that is the lynchpin question. There are legal things that politicians should still be held accountable for (lying, for example) and there are illegal things that we should probably just let go. If people decide Trump has acted poorly, we have more options than to just wait out his term, but you must first decide if you think what he did was wrong.

We/Congress can:

(1) make sure folks like Kushner get there security clearance revoked;
(2) force him to be accountable by refusing to pass his policies unless he starts acting better; or
(3) theoretically, Congress can impeach someone even if they didn't commit a high crime.

Do you always base your morality on whether something is or is not legal? Just saying "let's move on" means that he will never be held accountable.

I wanted to "like" this post. I definitely like the concept of being concerned with more than just legality.

However, (2) concerns me. It seems many liberals want conservatives in Congress to fight Trump by temporarily becoming leftists. Conservative policies aren't "Trump's policies" just because he happens to back one of them. As a conservative voter, I'm would be greatly disappointed if folks like Rubio chose not to support good, conservative legislation because Trump backed it too and they wanted to discipline him. Trust me, I want Trump out of the White House, embarrassed, and potentially even in jail if a legitimate case could be made against him somewhere. I despise the man. But for conservatives in Congress to avoid a conservative agenda would be a terrible idea. Policies are either good, so-so, or bad, regardless of what Trump chooses to say about them.

[Aargh]

Do what is right for the country, not your party.

Both sides are so firmly entrenched in their platforms, agendas, and rhetoric, that they actually believe their agenda is what's best for the country.

8 years ago, the most prominent and powerful of Republicans openly vowed they would do anything in their power to bring down an elected President. I'm certain they thought that was what was best for the country.

Who decides what's best for the country? Is single-payer and everyone has medical coverage "best", or is a totally free market for health insurance (which would leave as much as 10% of the population without medical coverage) what's "best" for the country.

We've lost the middle ground where the best ideas from both sides are thrown together to create workable solutions. It's pretty much become an "all or nothing" type of thing.

Congress has become a career instead of a service to one's country. The only way to ensure that career is to follow the party line. Without party funding for elections, it's nearly impossible to win an election. The system is broken.

[MoValley John]

That's just it. The media wouldn't be screaming like this with Hillary, but people like you and me would be disappointed in them that they let her off the hook.

I'm all about the media giving Trump the scrutiny he deserves, and then you and I can scream at the media when they let up once a Dem returns to the White House. Yes, they are ridiculously inconsistent, but in one sense, it has been good to see they can still be critical and do investigative work. I want more of that, not less.

I honestly don't think I would be upset if Hillary had won and the media didn't push the Ukraine issue. I would want her actions in office scrutinized. Elections are ugly business, while I don't condone dirty dealings, they happen. All of the time, with darned near every presidential candidate.

And collusion is very, very difficult to prove, the airlines get away with it every day. Even if Trump did something, proving is next to impossible. The energy being wasted on this is of historic proportions. If we want to make positive change, Congress needs to band together, create clearly defined rules, match them with clearly defined penalties, set a start date, and vigorously and uniformly enforce those rules in the future.

But Congress wont do this, because both Democrats and Republicans know that the ambiguity and lack of previous enforcement is exactly what their future candidate might need. The circus going on right now is just the cover the Dems need to block Republican legislation. Many probably don't want Trump punished, they just want to use the controversy to neuter Trumps ability to push forward legislation.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

GOP members should refuse to work with Trump on any new policies until he makes certain changes.

Liberal Offer: Hey conservatives! Yeah, you! I came up with an excellent way for you to discipline Trump. You know that majority you earned in Congress? Yeah, that unique and rare level of power you obtained recently to push through legislation that we liberals despise? The one that will only last for so long?

Waste it! Just throw it away! That will teach Trump a lesson!

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Even shorter...

According to liberals, the only way for conservatives to really, REALLY, stand up to Trump is to become liberals.

[jdshock]

Liberal Offer: Hey conservatives! Yeah, you! I came up with an excellent way for you to discipline Trump. You know that majority you earned in Congress? Yeah, that unique and rare level of power you obtained recently to push through legislation that we liberals despise? The one that will only last for so long?

Waste it! Just throw it away! That will teach Trump a lesson!

Yeah, I thanked you for your first post making this point because I think it's a good thought. And I'm sure the way I phrased it is because that's my ideal scenario.

That said, the underlying point is that Congress does have the ability to hold the president accountable. Namely, they can send investigations his way, they can refuse to compromise on bad pet projects he supports, they can start publicly denouncing him, etc.

[Kung Wu]

Anybody remember the media diving into this?

If these progressives want to know what actual treason looks like, they should consult liberal lion Ted Kennedy, who not only allegedly sent secret messages to the Soviets in the midst of the cold war, he also begged them to intervene in a U.S. presidential election in order to unseat President Ronald Reagan. That’s no exaggeration.


According to Soviet documents unearthed in the early 1990’s, Kennedy literally asked the Soviets, avowed enemies of the U.S., to intervene on behalf of the Democratic party in the 1984 elections. Kennedy’s communist communique was so secret that it was not discovered until 1991, eight years after Kennedy had initiated his Soviet gambit.

Yeah, me neither.

[Aargh]

One good thing Trump has done is give SN something to talk about during the offseason.

[wufan]

You can't imagine a scenario so problematic that a person should be removed prior to their original term? To reverse your question, why don't my proposals work?

Sure I can, and Trump's case, in my mind, is a legitimately impeachable offense based on the rules of high crimes and misdemeanors. There are numerous other transgressions that could also pass this at multiple levels, yet we aren't looking into those. If we want that level of morality, then we need to go back to universal laws of nature and agree that this won't be tolerated at any level.

By doing the above, we commit ourselves to a universal narrative of America that is constitutional, yet we put ourselves in the very real possible scenario of a decade of impeachment hearings. If this is your proposal, I'm probably down with it. Let's round everyone up that has somehow abused the power of his office and commit to constitutional law, not just those that are not on our side.

[shockmonster]

Sure I can, and Trump's case, in my mind, is a legitimately impeachable offense based on the rules of high crimes and misdemeanors. There are numerous other transgressions that could also pass this at multiple levels, yet we aren't looking into those. If we want that level of morality, then we need to go back to universal laws of nature and agree that this won't be tolerated at any level.

By doing the above, we commit ourselves to a universal narrative of America that is constitutional, yet we put ourselves in the very real possible scenario of a decade of impeachment hearings. If this is your proposal, I'm probably down with it. Let's round everyone up that has somehow abused the power of his office and commit to constitutional law, not just those that are not on our side.

Could you please list his high crimes? At this time, I doubt he can be prosecuted for breaking the law.

If Clinton couldn't be impeached for Sexual harassment (a case that was not prosecutable but he would have been fired from any other job), I don't see how this rises above that. Nixon would have been impeached, but he resigned. Nixon also was pardoned but he could have gone to jail. Lots of scandals by Presidents that were never prosecuted.

[Play Angry]

Too early to tell what the offenses might or might not be at this point. I have some confidence that Mueller will give an honest, good faith effort to figure it out eventually.

That doesn't seem to be slowing down about 98% of America from irrevocably lining up on "ARREST HIM!"/"HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING!" sides though.

[Play Angry]

Anybody remember the media diving into this?



Yeah, me neither.

Ted certainly had a substantial list of offenses for which he should have served a fat prison term.