The Trump Presidency

[Vociferous]

Vociferous

Perhaps it is forgotten that the POTUS is supposed to be bi partisan or at the very least not involved in partisan politics.

• He is supposed to be POTUS for all USA Citizens and not just the people who voted for him (including the Russians ~sarc.)
• He is supposed to hold the National interests, especially the defense of the Constitution as his highest priority including and especially the check and balances offered by the impeachment process.
• He should be a stalwart against systemic corruption and not be a participant of it.
• He certainly should not threaten or incite revolution and immediately stand down, resign, if such a potential is generated by his actions and words.

It is just staggering as to how destructive Trump has been to National/Global unity and how he is prepared to sacrifice the USA national interests for personal gain...revenge against imaginary windmills twirling away in his over inflated and craven ego.

----

The story regarding Trump and the questionable suicide of Epstein has yet to mature. No doubt Epstein was smart enough to leave something behind... just a matter of time and courage...I guess...
For Trump, there are many whistle blowers waiting in the wings no doubt...

There is also no doubt in my mind that Trump is pursuing the identity of the Ukraine extortion whistle blower, and it fully appears to be a case of extortion for personal gain, so as to intimidate all the other whistle blowers waiting there turn...

• It's those US citizens claiming he is not their president, not vice versa.
  
• Nothing in the Constitution automatically compels cooperation with a nakedly partisan witch hunt. The subpoenas have been legally challenged and have yet to be ruled on by a judge, but House Democrats want to claim obstruction, denying the checks and balances of the judiciary.
  
• He was asking Ukraine to investigate corruption. How is it intellectually honest and consistent to ignore one potential corruption while yelling about another? Democrats could get more support for impeachment by supporting an investigation into Hunter Biden.
  
• Where has he threatened or incited revolution? Leftist fantasy to justify a wholly partisan (aside fro one Democrat against) impeachment.

The US national interests are doing fine. We have pre-recession job growth and historically low unemployment, especially of minorities. Leftists are the only ones seeking to destroy unity in the face of all that. Your "imaginary windmills" look like projection, especially considering the heaping helping of pure leftist fantasy you immediately dish out.

 

[Vociferous]

The 1% pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the lower classes. That is regressive, not progressive, taxation.

You're obviously ignorant of the actual definition of progressive taxation.

Using percentage paid relative to gross income is how "regressive" and "progressive" taxation systems are defined.

Only to the ignorant (bubble-dwelling) or biased leftist.

It is the central and definitive fact involved in distinguishing them.
The total amount paid by the rich vs the majority is completely irrelevant - in a completely regressive system the rich might very well pay all the taxes, since they have all the wealth and income.

Okay, then cite one credible source to support your idiosyncratic "definition."

I won't be holding my breath.

So? They are irrelevant - the rich choose the form and timing of their income, and that's a big part of how they avoid paying taxes on their gross. A theoretical table of payment that includes only that one tax on only the taxable income provides us with very little information - a billionaire hedge fund manager, for example, would likely show only a small fraction of their gross income subject to such taxation.

Empty, ignorant claims devoid of anything even remotely resembling support.

They identify the businesses and his record of manipulation over the years, which his how we assure ourselves that he is not vulnerable to blackmail or profiteering from his Presidency.

Leftist conspiracy theories. Yawn.

They are impeaching Trump for indictable crimes (bribery and extortion and obstruction of justice, say), high crimes and misdemeanors not indictable (including some particular to the Presidency), and so forth.

Then why check public opinion before proceeding?

Dishonestly. You appear to be pretending to doubt what we all know is simple and obvious fact - if you actually doubt it, that needs to be explicit.
Besides, I enjoy seeing how far I can push your willingness to assert foolishness - like your confusion over regressive vs progressive taxation and its dependence on total tax paid/gross income.

Since you obviously don't comprehend such a simple notion as progressive taxation, this is just as obviously projecting your own clear ignorance, foolishness, and confusion on others. Sad.

Simple fact is that if I had claimed that people paid less were not less productive, you could simply quote it. You can't, because you've either imagined it or are just plain lying.

Sounds like the reality, or part of it - it's political of course (as is everything else done by Congress), and in the current circumstances involves at least one cut and dried crime (obstruction of justice).

Then why did Shiff say he had to consult his constituents before deciding whether to actually impeach? Should be a simple question, if you're not too busy with mental gymnastics to justify your own bias.

 

[iceaura]

Then why did Shiff say he had to consult his constituents before deciding whether to actually impeach?

Irrelevant. Schiff is a politician, with lots of reasons to do anything and even more reasons to say he did something.

Nothing in the Constitution automatically compels cooperation with a nakedly partisan witch hunt.

Nonsense. Trump has no legitimate or Constitutional power to declare such Congressional actions invalid for any reason, or choose which ones to cooperate with. Congress has full authority to impeach and try him at will, and he is oath-bound to cooperate with it.

He was asking Ukraine to investigate corruption.

No, he wasn't. He was demanding that Ukraine's President declare, in public, that Ukraine was investigating Joe Biden and his son, on pain of being denied military and financial aid. (He did not demand that any such investigation actually take place, before delivery of aid).
That is corruption. It should be investigated. If Ukraine were to launch an investigation of US corruption of its government, it would start with Trump's pressuring of its President.

- "the rich choose the form and timing of their income, and that's a big part of how they avoid paying taxes on their gross. A theoretical table of payment that includes only that one tax on only the taxable income provides us with very little information - "
Empty, ignorant claims devoid of anything even remotely resembling support.

This guy is denying the existence of significant City, State, and Federal tax loopholes favoring the wealthy.
There is no bottom to this barrel - there is nothing, nothing at all, too silly or stupid for some victim of rightwing authoritarian propaganda to claim in public.

Okay, then cite one credible source to support your idiosyncratic "definition."

You posted the stupid, you find the "credible support".

You're obviously ignorant of the actual definition of progressive taxation.

Enlighten us.
Keep in mind that you posted the Federal tables for personal income tax paid as proof that rich people in the US pay higher tax rates on their gross income than poor people.

Only to the ignorant (bubble-dwelling) or biased leftist.

Lots of people besides biased (there is no leftist bubble, in the US) leftists know what progressive taxation is.

You now have an opportunity to learn, yourself - and possibly educate others.

 

[iceaura]

And meanwhile, as the Ukraine stuff heads for an impeachment vote, there's the earlier one - that Michael Flynn took a fall for, that involves Trump's family, and that directly affected military decisions with life and death consequences for US allies:
https://thebulwark.com/trumps-turkey-corruption-is-way-worse-than-you-realize/

the tl;dr is:

Trump enabled a despot who has significant leverage over his business in a brutal ethnic cleansing of our ally, cutting an opaque sweetheart deal negotiated by the sons-in-law of Erdogan, Trump, and Trump’s business partner.

Meanwhile, Erdogan has empowered Trump’s business partner, making him Turkey’s key man in Washington, which gives him inordinate influence on the administration and ensures that the financial interests of all involved are maintained.

Subheads, from the public record:
The Players
The Timeline: Trump Business
The Timeline: Trump Administration
The Timeline: Michael Flynn
The Timeline: Giuliani / Halkbank
sample: "2010 to 2014 – During this period, Reza Zarrab, who is the ringleader of a crime organization designed to evade U.S. sanctions against Iran, runs his business from Trump Towers in Istanbul."
"February 2017 – Zarrab hires Rudy Giuliani to be part of his legal defense. Giuliani travels to Turkey to meet with Erdogan."

And, as always with Republican leadership, the occasional comic cell phone interlude involving key players giving the game away and breaching national security in the process: https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/10/lindsey-graham-trump-hoax-call-043991

Graham also mentions Trump’s personal interest in a “Turkish bank case” in the call that appears to refer to a U.S. case involving Reza Zarrab, an Iranian-Turkish gold trader and client of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Bloomberg reported on Wednesday that Trump had asked then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in 2017 to help persuade the Justice Department to drop the Zarrab case.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The US national interests are doing fine. We have pre-recession job growth and historically low unemployment, especially of minorities. Leftists are the only ones seeking to destroy unity in the face of all that. Your "imaginary windmills" look like projection, especially considering the heaping helping of pure leftist fantasy you immediately dish out.

and you seriously think jobs growth which is dubious at best, is the main reason that the USA Government should overlook and turn a blind eye to Trumps short and long term threats against national security, unity and credibility?
Seriously?
I gotta wonder just how far you will go to deflect and hide from the actual issues involved in this case.
If Trump is NOT successfully impeached by trial in the Senate, then the credibility of the USA Government will be forever seriously compromised. The issue is not a political one. It is a legal one brought on by the very legislators of the nation.
The fact that the Republicans and you wish to make this a political issue is ultimately destructive to the national interests.
How is "No one is above the law" a political statement?
What happens if legal precedent is established by the Senate acquitting Trump on political grounds?

 

[Vociferous]

Irrelevant. Schiff is a politician, with lots of reasons to do anything and even more reasons to say he did something.

Sure, but only if you think the prosecution of actual crimes is subject to public opinion. Otherwise, he's either lying to you or playing politics with actual crimes.

Nonsense. Trump has no legitimate or Constitutional power to declare such Congressional actions invalid for any reason, or choose which ones to cooperate with. Congress has full authority to impeach and try him at will, and he is oath-bound to cooperate with it.

Trump hasn't just declared Congressional actions invalid. He has challenged the subpoenas, which is his legal right. Democrats are claiming obstruction before a judge has had a chance to rule on those challenges, thus it's the Democrats trying to ignore check and balances. And since I never said anything about Congressional authority to impeach, that's a complete straw man. No, POTUS is not "oath-bound" to just cooperate without any legal recourse at all. That is a denial of due process. You really are legally illiterate, huh?

No, he wasn't. He was demanding that Ukraine's President declare, in public, that Ukraine was investigating Joe Biden and his son, on pain of being denied military and financial aid. (He did not demand that any such investigation actually take place, before delivery of aid).
That is corruption. It should be investigated. If Ukraine were to launch an investigation of US corruption of its government, it would start with Trump's pressuring of its President.

Not according to the transcript nor any witnesses with direct knowledge, including the Ukrainian president himself. And if this "corruption" should be investigated, so should the Bidens, as chronologically, such an investigation in US meddling in Ukrainian politics would start there. Not to mention that the Bidens are the ONLY reason Trump even had anything to ask them to investigate. You cannot be intellectually honest and demand the latter while ignoring the former. Luckily, no one seems to expect any intellectual honesty from you.

This guy is denying the existence of significant City, State, and Federal tax loopholes favoring the wealthy.
There is no bottom to this barrel - there is nothing, nothing at all, too silly or stupid for some victim of rightwing authoritarian propaganda to claim in public.

That's a complete straw man, apparently as a distraction from you being completely and predictably unable to cite anything for your ignorant and idiosyncratic definition for progressive taxation. It's a really bad look to be so blatantly wrong and in such stubborn denial of readily available facts. Hell, you were the one who was just referring other to Google. Heed your own advise occasionally.

You posted the stupid, you find the "credible support".

Can't find what doesn't exist. You made up your own idiosyncratic definition of progressive taxation and you're now falling on your face because you obviously cannot come up with a single source that you could even pretend to pass off as similar.

Enlighten us.
Keep in mind that you posted the Federal tables for personal income tax paid as proof that rich people in the US pay higher tax rates on their gross income than poor people.

Just Google it and quit being so ignorant.
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=progressive taxation

I could post countless definitions that do not match yours, but you won't likely admit any error, so it's a waste of my time.

Lots of people besides biased (there is no leftist bubble, in the US) leftists know what progressive taxation is.

You now have an opportunity to learn, yourself - and possibly educate others.

It's obtuse to think there's no leftist bubble in the US. Evidence is abundant, including the percentage of Democrats in newsrooms and media in general, as compared to the population in general.

and you seriously think jobs growth which is dubious at best, is the main reason that the USA Government should overlook and turn a blind eye to Trumps short and long term threats against national security, unity and credibility?
Seriously?
I gotta wonder just how far you will go to deflect and hide from the actual issues involved in this case.
If Trump is NOT successfully impeached by trial in the Senate, then the credibility of the USA Government will be forever seriously compromised. The issue is not a political one. It is a legal one brought on by the very legislators of the nation.
The fact that the Republicans and you wish to make this a political issue is ultimately destructive to the national interests.
How is "No one is above the law" a political statement?
What happens if legal precedent is established by the Senate acquitting Trump on political grounds?

I'll skip comment on the leftist diatribe to point out the simple fact that you apparently couldn't come up with a single rebut to responses to your own bullet points. Just ignore what you can't explain, huh?

 

[Quantum Quack]

I'll skip comment on the leftist diatribe to point out the simple fact that you apparently couldn't come up with a single rebut to responses to your own bullet points. Just ignore what you can't explain, huh?

Define what you mean by "Leftist" other than any one who confronts or disagrees with your opinion...
How is "No one is above the law" a leftist statement?
Then perhaps address the other questions raised in my post with out demonstrating your inability to do so by falsely claiming "leftist diatribe".

Just ignore what you can't explain, huh?

You do realise that with out a left there is no right surely?....lol

 

[Seattle]

QQ I agree with most of your statements above but Congress isn't a court and doesn't establish legal precedents. Empeachment is the political option. Going to the courts would be the legal option.

 

[Vociferous]

Define what you mean by "Leftist" other than any one who confronts or disagrees with your opinion...

https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/09/12/leftism-not-liberalism-differences/

How is "No one is above the law" a leftist statement?
Then perhaps address the other questions raised in my post with out demonstrating your inability to do so by falsely claiming "leftist diatribe".

I never said "no one is above the law" was itself a leftist statement. Leftists very often cherry-pick reasonable thought to make ad hoc justifications for their ideology. Like you conflating "legal precedent" with the "political". Impeachment is wholly political, without any actual crime or evidence thereof necessary. The only thing required is political will, for any trumped up excuse they think might work.

You do realise that with out a left there is no right surely?....lol

Without the left there are just reasonable adults. Freedom loving conservatives and liberals who can disagree without hating America or demonizing each other.

 

[Quantum Quack]

QQ I agree with most of your statements above but Congress isn't a court and doesn't establish legal precedents. Empeachment is the political option. Going to the courts would be the legal option.

I shall defer to your judgement...
However let me ask:
Are you drawing a distinction between legal and constitutional precedent? (to me they appear to be both the same.)

My understanding, subject to correction of course:
The impeachment process is because the defendant (POTUS) is not able to be charged with a crime in the courts and its thus judged by his peers (Congress including Senate)
It is still a legal process that stems from the very heart of constitutional requirement.
To politicize the process is to corrupt the intent of the constitution which at this level should always be non-partisan and entirely devoted to the national interests and it's legal constitutional requirement for checks and balances.
Thus the principle of "No one is above the law" including politicians stands valid.

If Trump has provably broken the law, as it appears he has done, and gets a way with it, as it appears he may do, he is telling the world that the POTUS is above the law purely because of skillful politics and sets a precedent that renders Congress as a functioning body effectively impotent as legislators of the nation.
If the law is subject only to popular opinion it is not a law per see.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The only thing required is political will, for any trumped up excuse they think might work.

lol...
Perhaps a different phrase other than "Trumped up" would be more useful to you... lol

 

[Quantum Quack]

...contd
In this case because the "court " are legislators first who happen to be politicians second, then the politicization of the legislators role to the extent needed to acquit a publicly provably guilty POTUS destroys any Congressional integrity it might have placing the POTUS potentially in the role of a Fascist Dictator who is unencumbered by any rule of law.
If the Senate refuses to operate in it's fudiciary responsibility and operates on purely political grounds a serious constitutional crisis would inevitably evolve forcing significant reform after significant instability.


so maybe I have it all wrong... but can not help but feel that the 2nd amendment will be capitalized on in ways not seen before...

 

[Seattle]

I shall defer to your judgement...
However let me ask:
Are you drawing a distinction between legal and constitutional precedent? (to me they appear to be both the same.)

My understanding, subject to correction of course:
The impeachment process is because the defendant (POTUS) is not able to be charged with a crime in the courts and its thus judged by his peers (Congress including Senate)
It is still a legal process that stems from the very heart of constitutional requirement.
To politicize the process is to corrupt the intent of the constitution which at this level should always be non-partisan and entirely devoted to the national interests and it's legal constitutional requirement for checks and balances.
Thus the principle of "No one is above the law" including politicians stands valid.

If Trump has provably broken the law, as it appears he has done, and gets a way with it, as it appears he may do, he is telling the world that the POTUS is above the law purely because of skillful politics and sets a precedent that renders Congress as a functioning body effectively impotent as legislators of the nation.
If the law is subject to popular opinion it is not a law per see.

There is no constitutional precedent. It's a legal concept. Impeachment is the political solution under the Constitution. If he broke any laws, he could be charged though the legal system after he left office (which is one reason he doesn't want to leave office).

No one is above the law but as most of the applicable laws are currently written, the President is excluded so, only in that sense, he isn't breaking many laws that would be broken if he was anyone other than the President.

I would expect that a good many laws will be rewritten after he leaves office in an attempt to prevent this kind of thing from happening again.

Saying that impeachment is the political solution isn't implying it isn't important or it's "just politics". It is the Constitutional solution and it is political. If he broke a law and shot someone that's not necessarily grounds for impeaching him. It is grounds for prosecuting him after he leaves office.

If he doesn't break any laws that govern the Presidency but if he takes a bribe from the Russians, he may not have broken any laws that cover him but the political solution would be to impeach him for the benefit of the country.

He clearly should be impeached but he probably won't be convicted because the Republicans in the Senate won't do that. They should and if their constituents wanted that, it would happen. Apparently, they don't want that and yes, the system is broken in that sense.

No one should be voting for any Republicans under these circumstances but that's not the reality. The Republicans in the House and Senate should be exercising their duties as a check on Executive powers. They aren't.

 

[Seattle]

The logic is supposed to be that the President is doing important work for the people and shouldn't be distracted by the other side bringing charges against him and dragging him though the courts while he is President.

If he is acting in such a manner (legal or not) that enough people feel that he is harming the country then the Constitutional solution is to impeach him. If enough people agree he is impeached, tried and if found guilt, removed from office. If that doesn't happen, Constitutionally that's a sign that his behavior wasn't bad enough to justify over-writing the will of the people that put him in office in the first place.

 

[Vociferous]

The only thing required is political will, for any trumped up excuse they think might work.

lol...
Perhaps a different phrase other than "Trumped up" would be more useful to you... lol

Nope, no need to quit using useful words, what, just because they suddenly trigger people.

...contd
In this case because the "court " are legislators first who happen to be politicians second, then the politicization of the legislators role to the extent needed to acquit a publicly provably guilty POTUS destroys any Congressional integrity it might have placing the POTUS potentially in the role of a Fascist Dictator who is unencumbered by any rule of law.
If the Senate refuses to operate in it's fudiciary responsibility and operates on purely political grounds a serious constitutional crisis would inevitably evolve forcing significant reform after significant instability.


so maybe I have it all wrong... but can not help but feel that the 2nd amendment will be capitalized on in ways not seen before...

You have it all wrong. Legislators are not a court, as the legislative and judiciary branches of government are separate but equal powers in the checks and balances. Legislators write laws and the courts interpret their implementation. Legislators do not have the power to prosecute legal cases outside of the courts, even though Democrats are claiming Trump legally challenging subpoenas is obstruction, before a judge has even ruled on them. Legislators do have the Constitutional recourse of impeachment, which is effectively a vote of no confidence, which is not a legal standard. As such, it is wholly political, no matter how much Democrats may claim their case is about actual crimes. Apparently you've been educated by the very people who want the public to conflate things and falsely believe there is any legally actionable evidence.

The Senate cooperating will be the same as the House. The majority party will determine how the proceedings go and how much to allow the minority party to subpoena (which has been none in the House, contrary to past impeachments) and cross-examine witnesses. The House is currently operating on purely political grounds, but brainwashed leftists can't fathom that. No, acquittal by the Senate does not cause a constitutional crisis. Like the House impeaching Bill Clinton, if the Senate does not, it simply ends there.

If there is illegal violence as a result, we can only assume that will come from leftist sources.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The logic is supposed to be that the President is doing important work for the people and shouldn't be distracted by the other side bringing charges against him and dragging him though the courts while he is President.

If he is acting in such a manner (legal or not) that enough people feel that he is harming the country then the Constitutional solution is to impeach him. If enough people agree he is impeached, tried and if found guilt, removed from office. If that doesn't happen, Constitutionally that's a sign that his behavior wasn't bad enough to justify over-writing the will of the people that put him in office in the first place.

ok.. thanks...
So it is more about impeaching his supporters than it is about impeaching him...

 

[Quantum Quack]

If there is illegal violence as a result, we can only assume that will come from leftist sources.

when the rule of law no longer has integrity, how can you consider any action to be illegal?
The slippery slope you guys are on is staggering in it's implications...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Vociferous
Would you support Trump if he attempted to have the 22nd amendment modified or removed from the constitution?

 

[Seattle]

ok.. thanks...
So it is more about impeaching his supporters than it is about impeaching him...

It's more about having more testimony on TV that people might actually watch so that support for him starts to dwindle to the point that the Republicans can vote against him and still be re-elected.

 

[Seattle]

when the rule of law no longer has integrity, how can you consider any action to be illegal?
The slippery slope you guys are on is staggering in it's implications...

The actual rule of law is being followed. He was elected, he still has support among his base and our Constitution wasn't really designed to protect us from ourselves.