Trump

[Kung Wu]

Here is the biggest issue I have with the idea that there is not sufficient evidence to support the investigation:

How much evidence do you need to investigate a president? Is it more than you need to investigate a regular citizen?

Emphatically YES.

[wufan]

Here is the biggest issue I have with the idea that there is not sufficient evidence to support the investigation:

How much evidence do you need to investigate a president? Is it more than you need to investigate a regular citizen?

It depends on the seriousness of the crime and the way in which it was perpetrated. The political nature of the investigation is hard for me to swallow, whether that was the intention or not.

Working with Russia to sway an election is a serious allegation, and incredible claims require incredible evidence. I feel that substantial evidence should be manifested BEFORE the actual investigation is underway.

Campaign finance violations are a minor violation. Get on with the trial if one is warranted.

[Shockm]

MSNBC and CNN have never mentioned her murder in a story. ABC, NBC, and CBS have barely mentioned it in very short sound bites and very short stories. They are respecting her demise and actual murder for sure if not covering it up.

Jd and Crazy would say that in addition to covering up and overlooking this crime of murder by an illegal, It is wrong to arrest him for breaking the law of crossing the border illegally in addition to overlooking his crime of identity theft. All of us would be thrown in prison for stealing someone else’ identity but illegals (especially this murderer) should be protected. Ice is who is overstepping their boundaries.

[ShockCrazy]

Jd and Crazy would say that in addition to covering up and overlooking this crime of murder by an illegal, It is wrong to arrest him for breaking the law of crossing the border illegally in addition to overlooking his crime of identity theft. All of us would be thrown in prison for stealing someone else’ identity but illegals (especially this murderer) should be protected. Ice is who is overstepping their boundaries.

I enjoy exceedingly stupid fake narratives, it shows you're own defensiveness and inability to converse in an honest debate. What else can you come up with? That the best you got? Maybe you can tie me to missing emails or something perhaps Bengazi somehow. That should teach me.

[wufan]

Jd and Crazy would say that in addition to covering up and overlooking this crime of murder by an illegal, It is wrong to arrest him for breaking the law of crossing the border illegally in addition to overlooking his crime of identity theft. All of us would be thrown in prison for stealing someone else’ identity but illegals (especially this murderer) should be protected. Ice is who is overstepping their boundaries.

Despite differing narratives/perspectives, I don’t find this to be a credible representation of those that I disagree with.

[ShockingButTrue]

It seems to have been an obviously overstated, cheeky, exclamation. Possibly. It seems the true reference was in of open borders? That is a strong leftist/progressive conviction, is it not?

[C0|dB|00ded]

An honest desire for open borders could only be held by the truly IQ deficient. Even third world countries laugh at the concept and they have nothing to lose.


T


...:cool:

[Shockm]

I enjoy exceedingly stupid fake narratives, it shows you're own defensiveness and inability to converse in an honest debate. What else can you come up with? That the best you got? Maybe you can tie me to missing emails or something perhaps Bengazi somehow. That should teach me.

My statements are very prevalent within the typical Open Borders, Sanctuary City/State Democrat crowd. Maybe you are atypical.

[ShockCrazy]

My statements are very prevalent within the typical Open Borders, Sanctuary City/State Democrat crowd. Maybe you are atypical.

No they aren't but have at it man. You probably haven't spoken to a single real person who had those views. It's easy to create strawmen to argue against.

[ShockingButTrue]

NM

[ShockerPrez]

No they aren't but have at it man. You probably haven't spoken to a single real person who had those views. It's easy to create strawmen to argue against.

I agree with this. I don't believe it is a popular view. However it is among the Democrat leadership, for whatever reason. And in progressive bastions on the coasts. I would say, in red states, most democrats hold the same views as republicans on immigration.

[jdshock]

It depends on the seriousness of the crime and the way in which it was perpetrated. The political nature of the investigation is hard for me to swallow, whether that was the intention or not.

Working with Russia to sway an election is a serious allegation, and incredible claims require incredible evidence. I feel that substantial evidence should be manifested BEFORE the actual investigation is underway.

Campaign finance violations are a minor violation. Get on with the trial if one is warranted.

"Whether that was the intention or not" - It was not the intention, and you should not ascribe to Mueller something that the media has caused. Trump has called it a witch hunt. I keep saying this, but it's just political propaganda to convince people like you that this is a baseless accusation fueled by democrats. It's not. Mueller was appointed by Rosenstein, not by democrats. He was appointed by a member of the executive branch. Mueller is a republican. Mueller has done nothing to make this political. I was even a little off yesterday when I was talking about the Cohen stuff. Cohen was not being prosecuted by Mueller. It was an entirely separate investigation by the Southern District of New York, so every single one of Mueller's indictments has been directly related to foreign actions, save for Manafort if we want to quibble over his actions. Your stance that this investigation is of a "political nature" is exactly what Trump wants you to believe.

If you have to have a smoking gun before the investigation, the White Water investigation would've never happened. Every president since Nixon (except Obama) faced an independent investigation. None of these would've occurred if we had to have a smoking gun before the investigation. Mueller's power comes from the DOJ. It is not a congressional act, and the DOJ (the DOJ of Trump, I might add) felt a special investigator was necessary. And it's not even an investigation of Trump himself. It's Russian interference with the US election and the relationship to Trump's campaign. We're 15 months in and there have been 30 indictments. And we think there's not enough evidence to continue this investigation? Come on...

If we want to say presidents receive special powers and it's a tough job so they shouldn't face the cloud of an investigation, that's fine. But we have to be willing to impeach as a society. We just have to say presidents have to resign instead of appointing a special counsel. Personally, I think that's a terrible idea. But it's the ONLY remedy we have as a society. If we cannot investigate, there will never be evidence that comes out. Our system is currently set up so that special investigators can be appointed, they look into all sorts of facts, and then (probably) a report will be given to congress. If we don't allow that, I just don't understand how you protect American citizens from serious wrongdoing.

I don't have a source for this because it's just a basic, common sense fact: there is basically never a situation in which an investigator has the "smoking gun" before an investigation occurs.

[ShockCrazy]

I agree with this. I don't believe it is a popular view. However it is among the Democrat leadership, for whatever reason. And in progressive bastions on the coasts. I would say, in red states, most democrats hold the same views as republicans on immigration.

I don't think it's even that common for the vast majority of actual informed Democrats. I don't wanna pivot this necessarily into an immigration discussion, but a few points. I whole heartedly believe we need sweeping immigration reform, I think most people on both sides agree with this.

The people who push #AbolishIce stuff are stupid at worst and mislead or don't understand at best. Maybe ICE does need to go away in that we go back to customs, immigration, and border security falling in the bucket of the DoJ rather DoHS as it was pre-9/11, that's a discussion that should happen. Regardless, there is and always will be a need for an organization wherever it is who's mission is to protect our borders, enforce customs, and handle immigration so the root #AbolishIce stuff is stupid(but to be clear much of this is Russian propagated to create dissent).

That said stay or move ICE and CBP NEED massive changes, current law allows them to operate with effectively no oversight and little accountability due to it's weird legal gray area with regards to rights of non-citizens and the reluctance of the government to define it. Because of this these organizations at some rate(maybe low or high, lack of oversight is an issue for determining scale) infringe on the rights of US citizens, and also leads to the abuse and neglect of asylum seekers or other humans just looking for a better life. We need to define precisely what rights are extended to non-citizens AND protect those rights. We need to ensure the organizations in charge of enforcement has oversight and is held accountable.

Yes we need to pursue criminals to the full extent of the law, but we need to better define what makes them a criminal, the process for enforcement, and what the outcomes are.

[Shockm]

I know I’m defined as a criminal if I steal someone else’s ID SS #. Drivers licenses, jobs require ID, and perhaps voting all are activities that require ID. Seems defined already for you and me.

[ShockCrazy]

Anyone who is interested in genuine discussion of the issues I am more than happy to converse with, but I am not going to engage you( Shockm ) specifically in any further conversation. You have no interest in honest intellectual discussion, you put words in peoples mouths, you create straw-man arguments that don't pertain to the subject at hand, you create false equivalencies, and seem to have little to no grasp of the issues. So sincerely, have a nice day.

[C0|dB|00ded]

"Yes we need to pursue criminals to the full extent of the law, but we need to better define what makes them a criminal, the process for enforcement, and what the outcomes are."

Written in perfect legalistic Libtard prose. "Of course we need to pursue criminals to the full extent of the law....... we just need to redefine who is a criminal"

*sigh*...

"We need to define what "is".. is...

Signed,

Willy


Here's a clue: The criminal is the one that breaks the law. The laws are written and enforced to protect the rights of others. We have many reasonable laws on the books relating to border security. Many go unenforced because Libtards like Nancy Pelosi race to the border with her camera crew creating melodramas out of routine law enforcement.

*baby crying*
*mama crying*

*Cue Libtard leader*

Pelosi: "Mama's shouldn't be separated from their babies."

CUT!

That's a wrap folks. Off to Washington to sow seeds of discontent and promote Utopian fantasies to generate votes.


T


...:cool:

[Shockm]

I think I stated clearly that if we are a country of laws, it is already defined. We already had a compromise in 1980 ish with full citizenship given to millions and now we are worse off, largely because the liberal wing of your party and the business wing of the Rep. Party wants to ignore laws for their own personal benefits. The only way I would be for another compromise would be if the govt gained control of the borders with a better wall and use of technology, along with ending chain migration. I like legal immigration but we need to know who is here and enforce all of our laws.

[C0|dB|00ded]

All this talk about routine legal process and separate jurisdiction... L O L!

The Manafort and Cohen cases came to their conclusion in perfect synchrony while presented in dramatic split-screen fashion on the usual Fake News outlets.


Regarding ICE and "immigration" rights...

It's clear that the protections afforded by the constitutional amendments (for American citizens) are no help to the ambitious crime fighter. Our founding fathers chose liberty over a police state and I thank them for that. But outside our borders lie real enemies who are not friendly to our ideals. I have no problem with an alternative style of enforcement when it comes to Guantanamo Bay, the southern border, rogue countries, etc. In these instances you shouldn't expect to feel or be treated like an American. In this day and age, no first world country with an ounce of common sense should be walking up to border crossers with outstretched arms. You approach with a flashlight and your hand resting on your firearm.

And if you are trying to cross illegally with a child you're damn right you're likely to get separated from them. This is the risk you take when you attempt to break the law. American's who break the law are separated from their children also.


T


...:cool:

[wufan]

"Whether that was the intention or not" - It was not the intention, and you should not ascribe to Mueller something that the media has caused. Trump has called it a witch hunt. I keep saying this, but it's just political propaganda to convince people like you that this is a baseless accusation fueled by democrats. It's not. Mueller was appointed by Rosenstein, not by democrats. He was appointed by a member of the executive branch. Mueller is a republican. Mueller has done nothing to make this political. I was even a little off yesterday when I was talking about the Cohen stuff. Cohen was not being prosecuted by Mueller. It was an entirely separate investigation by the Southern District of New York, so every single one of Mueller's indictments has been directly related to foreign actions, save for Manafort if we want to quibble over his actions. Your stance that this investigation is of a "political nature" is exactly what Trump wants you to believe.

If you have to have a smoking gun before the investigation, the White Water investigation would've never happened. Every president since Nixon (except Obama) faced an independent investigation. None of these would've occurred if we had to have a smoking gun before the investigation. Mueller's power comes from the DOJ. It is not a congressional act, and the DOJ (the DOJ of Trump, I might add) felt a special investigator was necessary. And it's not even an investigation of Trump himself. It's Russian interference with the US election and the relationship to Trump's campaign. We're 15 months in and there have been 30 indictments. And we think there's not enough evidence to continue this investigation? Come on...

If we want to say presidents receive special powers and it's a tough job so they shouldn't face the cloud of an investigation, that's fine. But we have to be willing to impeach as a society. We just have to say presidents have to resign instead of appointing a special counsel. Personally, I think that's a terrible idea. But it's the ONLY remedy we have as a society. If we cannot investigate, there will never be evidence that comes out. Our system is currently set up so that special investigators can be appointed, they look into all sorts of facts, and then (probably) a report will be given to congress. If we don't allow that, I just don't understand how you protect American citizens from serious wrongdoing.

I don't have a source for this because it's just a basic, common sense fact: there is basically never a situation in which an investigator has the "smoking gun" before an investigation occurs.

I’m not in favor of Trump firing Mueller. He’s doing the job he was assigned. Since the election, the left has been looking for a way to get Trump out of office. This investigation is being utilized in that fashion. How can we stop the republicans from plaguing our nation? How can we stop these curses that are plaguing our village?

the answer to both is a public trial followed by a public execution.

[wufan]

For immigration, I’m in favor of amnesty and more immigrants, but I want border security first!

[WuDrWu]

More immigrants? Can you narrow that a bit please? More per year than current, or just a continuance of immigrants? I too am in favor of SOME kind of amnesty, but not a sweeping across the board "you came here illegally, haven't paid taxes and taken advantage of a welfare state we're all good just don't do it again" nonsensical amnesty.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Amnesty? Not a ****ing chance.

10 million wrongs do not make a right.

I'm for a path to citizenship that is harder than hell. There will be great sacrifice and the illegal will wonder to him or herself if he/she should have just gone back to their respective nations and reattempted to immigrate legally.


T


...:cool: