No more free elections or the computer election outcomes are controlled by Trump. No freedom of the press - only Fox news and state-approved media. No freedom of religion (only Protestant) nor freedom of speech or expression. Leadership would pass to Ivanka or Donald Jr.
Yes or no.
da!
shareJust curious, why would someone ask such an odd question?
shareNot odd at all. A Psychology Today study showed that there are people who are willing to give up democracy for a political leader who makes them feel better emotionally about themselves.
It's a common strategy for a democratically elected leader to change a democracy from within into a dictatorship (oligarchy, autocracy, tyranny). You'll notice that Trumpism has little to do with conservatism (free trade, immigration, less spending, constitutional freedoms, rule of law).
Democracy lost to autocracy in Russia, Turkey and Venezuela as well as Nazi Germany. There are people who tend to be authoritarian in nature who wouldn't mind giving up freedom for status and security which they believe will be found in a dictatorship.
Anyway, Trump has repeatedly said he envies autocrats like Putin and Jong-Un and he wouldn't mind remaining leader permanently. If the case presented itself, would you support it?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/05/donald-trump-dictator-not-enough-laugh
Yours is a classic straw man argument. I have never heard anyone advocate a Trump dictatorship. You attribute a false foolish position to your opponents, so you can easily knock it down and feel superior to them.
share"I have never heard anyone advocate a Trump dictatorship."
I've heard a TRUMP SUPPORTER on the NEWS being interviewed DECLARE that she'd want Trump as dictator if America had to have one.
Now you know.
Yes or no?
Why is the question of having a dictatorship in American hard for you to answer?
No.
Stupid question by a delusional Trump hater. Unless you want to list the actual steps he's taken to turn the presidency into a dictatorship. And I mean actual steps, not your crazy fantasies.
You support Russia attacking U.S. so I know where your loyalty is.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/05/donald-trump-dictator-not-enough-laugh
[deleted]
How much you wanta bet they'd happily march with goose-stepping to an Obama dictatorship?
sharehttps://youtu.be/NS8uFOJeOq0?t=2m30s
She would.
The lack of any real replies pretty much says it all:
-Most of the "trumpers" here are just trolls.
-Most Trumpers feel this way but are afraid to come out and say it.
-They also might be afk getting ready for their Aryan Nation meeting tonight.
shareThis is random, but I was passing through Tennessee last year and saw a sign on someone's lawn that had Trump's face with an American flag pattern on his face and the words "Make America White Again" written below it. It looked like one of those cheap wire signs that flap in the breeze.
Can't say I'm surprised.
No. We just feel it's too ridiculous to warrant a reply.
shareThere's nothing ridiculous about the question. Since 2016, I've seen Trumpers say the following:
-"Trump 2020 and BEYOND!"
-"Trump for life!"
-"Trump should just do away with the Constitution and start over."
-"We don't need help for any countries. If North Korea can be self-sustaining then so can we."
-"Trump should send drones to the houses of anyone who badmouths him online."
-"We'll bathe the ground red with the blood of all liberals."
-"They should suspend the elections."
-"You should be arrested for what you said about President Trump!"
All of those things would require a dictatorship in order to take place and that's without even mentioning the "Trump for dictator!" lady at that Bannon meeting.
That enough or should I go on? I have plenty more from where that came from.
Lol! I've never heard anyone say any of that stuff and I don't think you have either.
shareWho cares what you have or haven't heard? If you haven't heard any of those things, then you have no dog in this race, hence you really have no place in this discussion.
shareNah. You're making it up and I'll be in this discussion whether you like it or not.
shareWell, I guess I'll have to live with the disappointment that some guy named "chilone" on Moviechat.org doesn't believe my claims. :)
shareNo. You have to live with the fact that the truth is not in you. Your problem, not mine. ;)
shareWhatever you say. :)
sharehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS8uFOJeOq0&feature=youtu.be&t=2m30s
Here you go buddy, taken from just above the post you replied to, now you have heard it. That is your base right there.
[deleted]
But there is your boy O'Bannon clapping, is it really only one lunatic?
Btw, wtf does the vid you posted even allude too? Are you just posting vids b/c I posted one?
Edit: Oh, you think it is some sort of equivalence.. good for you buddy, keep on thinking that.
[deleted]
Why thank you for the compliment. Maybe I'm smarter because I know a con man when I see one, and you don't? You probably go to church and throw a bunch of money on the collection plate, don't you?
I'm really sorry for making you feel demeaned, yet I continue to feel like doing so. So when O'Bannon helped get Trump elected he was ok, but since he couldn't keep his mouth shut he's out, for all you honest, truthful, non-bias(and FOS) viewers of the TYT.
What about all the others he has appointed, and fired? And appointed, and fired? And appointed and fired? I thought they were all "The Best?"
You voted for a man that was a joke candidate every other time he ran, and continue to feel the need to elevate him beyond the joke was to begin with.
Hey, don't take my word for it, ask Rex Tillerson.
[deleted]
I 've see people with the screen name "God Emperor Trump" on Yahoo News comments sections and elsewhere. I've also heard more than a few people say the believe that Trump is God's anointed - that he LITERALLY was chosen by God to lead the United States. There's not much room for dissent if you are literally going against God by engaging in opposition to His Anointed. I've also seen "Trump 2020/Ivanka 2024/Trump, Jr. 2032"which sounds an awful lot like an hereditary monarchy. We've had dynasties before (Kennedy, Bush, Clinton),but I'd argue the tone and intensity is different, partly because Trump so openly voices his admiration for North Korea, Russia and Saudi Arabia for being "strong". Are some of these people trolling to provoke "salty Liberal tears"? Perhaps, but some people may be at least partly (or even completely) serious. Hard not to see a distinctly authoritarian (even totalitarian) propensity in those kinds of statements. Then there's the Q Anon people, who seem to be preparing for an end game in which the United States serves tens of thousands of sealed indictments, executes extreme renditions all over the globe, and sends people - including American citizens - to Guantanamo for secret military tribunals. The Constitutional considerations involved are conspicuously absent from these hypothetical scenarios they envision.
shareLOL! Are you talking about "the reptilians" with that secret plan, and their Illuminati puppets? You know, the ones really behind 9/11, JFK's assassination, and the Bills not winning the Super Bowl? The "God emperor Trump" stuff I personally find distasteful but it's just satire. People know talk like that drives people like you crazy...er....crazier.
Truth is Trump has less control over his own executive branch than any president in memory. There's more danger of him being too weak in exercising authority than there is of him somehow becoming a dictator. Obama, with his "pen and phone", came far closer to ruling as a dictator than Trump has. Obama overtly implemented an executive illegal alien amnesty policy that HE ADMITTED was unconstitutional. Then we get legitimate scandals, like weaponizing the IRS to suppress conservatives. For various abuses of power prominent left wing legal scholar Jonathan Turley testified that Obama was breaking the back of the Constitution.
By contrast Trump is reluctant to implement much of his own, perfectly legal agenda that he was elected for. While there's a history of presidents disregarding certainly blatantly unconstitutional rulings (or sometimes legitimate rulings in Abraham Lincoln's case) or quickly finding technical go arounds, Trump seems content to let some leftist activist hack out in Hawaii (or certain others) bring the country to a screeching halt on vital matters until he gets clear permission from the Supreme Court, seemingly forgetting that the branches are supposed to be coequal (and he's elected while federal judges are neither elected or accountable). He also showed immense restraint with this witch hunt and collusion hoax, even when these asshats threatened his family members. Obama simply squashed investigations and guilty parties were never held accountable, and those were real scandals sometimes involving Americans dying.
At this point we're in more danger of rule by a permanent political establishment including career federal bureaucrats and unelected judges who share Peter Strzok's disdain for the American middle class and who view elections as dog and pony shows than we are from Trump, the elected president.
What Trump ultimately does or doesn't do doesn't really change the fact that SOME people (not you, necessarily) would support a Trump dictatorship, or a dictatorship by someone coming after Trump once he departs the scene.
shareThat's infinitely less likely with a Republican base that supports and cherishes the Constitution and core American principles than it is with a leftist base that opposes those principles, views the Constitution as an "obstacle to social justice", and hates America. The side more prone to illegal street actions, tearing down statues when they don't get their way through the civilized process, and assaulting people to silence their speech is vastly more likely to support a dictatorship under an "ends justifies the means" rationalization.
share"a Republican base that supports and cherishes the Constitution and core American principles"
No, that's the TRADITIONAL Republican base...this is NOT Trump's base.
It still does so more than Democrats do, the party of the lunatic "squad" where a radical nutjob like Nancy Pelosi has become the relatively sane, restrained voice left in the room.
shareActually. it is. There's kook fringes in every camp but Trumps base is definitely traditional.
shareYeah, while Trump was elected on a populist wave that brought in new people most of his supporters are still the traditional Republican base. That base has become increasingly dissatisfied with the GOP establishment in part because that establishment has veered away from core American principles over the years.
shareJust curious how you can even claim with a straight face that Trump's base "cherishes the Constitution and core American principles" when Trump runs roughshod over the Constitution and rule of law and his base doesn't care?
Specifically when it comes to respecting congress as a co-equal branch of government as spelled out in the Constitution as a check on executive power? Since Dems have taken the House in January Trump hasn’t provided a single witness requested by congress. Nor has he turned over one page of documentation. Instead he's ordered witnesses not to obey requests, ignore congressional subpoenas, and ignore contempt citations. He's even extended this denial to former members of his staff and other areas of the executive branch far removed from direct contact with his office and even members of his transition team.
Along with denying congress witnesses and subpoenaed documents, Trump has sued congress to prevent the release of his personal information they are entitled to by law. He's continued to challenge the outcomes of those lawsuits and he has ordered members of his cabinet and their staff to ignore plain law in refusing to hand over information.
With all administrations there's a tug-of-war when the opposition party in congress exercises its Constitutional authority of oversight. But the absolute stonewalling of non-cooperation by Trump is unprecedented in American history.
So to say the Trump base "supports and cherishes the Constitution" sounds like a really bad joke. But it's not at all based in reality given the continuing unconditional support they give to a president who does not at all respect the Constitution.
Easy. I reject your absurd premise. Trump hasn't exercised executive authority to anywhere near the degree Obama and many other presidents have. He's certainly been far more cooperative with these frivolous congressional investigations. Obama totally stonewalled legitimate investigations that weren't absurd conspiracy theories about being an agent of Putin. Trump has shifted to giving Democrats virtually everything they want to reducing (though not ending) his cooperation, in perfectly constitutional fashion, because it's clear that Nadler, Schiff, and their crew are just lying nutjobs on a partisan witch hunt who are abusing their power and have already made their desire for "impeachment" clear. It's a waste of the American people's time and resources, especially now that the collusion conspiracy theory has been soundly debunked.
share"Trump has shifted to giving Democrats virtually everything they want"
lulz. You're clearly an alt-right conspiracy fantasist to think this. This is just unequivocally false. He's been stonewalling Dems since they took control of the House and denying them congressional oversight. This is just a fact. That you think he ever gave Democrats "virtually everything" proves you live in an alternative universe and can't be taken seriously.
That was actually a typo. I meant to write "Trump has shifted from giving Democrats virtually everything they want to reducing (though not ending) his cooperation, in perfectly constitutional fashion, because it's clear that Nadler, Schiff, and their crew are just lying nutjobs on a partisan witch hunt who are abusing their power and have already made their desire for "impeachment" clear."
You're the one living in a delusional bubble if you want to ignore millions of documents turned over and countless hours of congressional testimony by Trump officials, or if you truly believe this farce is legitimate "congressional oversight". That's in addition to the ridiculous special counsel "investigation" which Trump always had the power to end but allowed to fully complete. It reached the point of presidential harassment by unscrupulous partisans long ago. Heck, it would be more legitimate to hold hearings on the corruption exposed by Wikileaks in the Democratic party and our domestic media than it would be to waste any more taxpayer time on the BS Trump/Russia conspiracy theory. But then, the latter was always a strategy to distract from the former. That domestic corruption really does threaten our democracy.
"Trump has shifted from giving Democrats virtually everything they want to reducing (though not ending) his cooperation"
LOLZ! I got what you meant the first time so I'll say it again. This is just unequivocally false. Dems didn't control either chamber of congress last term and weren't in position to ask the administration for whatever they wanted without being overruled by Republicans in committee. They had no power of subpoena. Trump has been stonewalling Dem requests since they took over the House and finally were in position to ask for whatever they wanted. This is just a fact.
You are a hilariously ignorant alt-right fabulist who lives in an alternative universe detached from empirical reality. You've demonstrated that you're grossly ignorant of how government functions and lack a grip on basic facts. It just underscores my original point that you can't be taken seriously because you have no idea what you're even talking about.
It's no wonder you think Trump's base "cherishes the Constitution" because you literally don't even understand the Constitution. You should try reading it sometime.
"alt-right"
LOL! Just how am I "alt-right"? You have no idea what that term even means. You're just throwing random BS out because you have nothing substantive to say. As for Trump, I was also talking about the Democrats on the Mueller team. He frankly cooperated more than he should have, not really resisting until they wanted to interrogate him personally. He drastically limited cooperation with the House "investigations" a few months ago after the Mueller report came out, long after Democrats had already taken control in the House.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-15/white-house-rejects-house-requests-for-documents-testimony
He HAD to do that because Nadler went off the deep end, desperately expanding subpoena targets to go after his old private finances and his family members in what's clearly a fishing expedition when he didn't get the result from Mueller he wanted. It's an investigation in search of a crime. That's what happens in police states. That you view that partisan abuse of power as legitimate "oversight" shows how stunningly ignorant you are of the Constitution, core American values, and normal government operations. But Trump cooperated a lot before that. Even before Democrats took over the RINO leadership, more anti-Trump than it is now, was mostly on the same page with Dems in pursuing the Russia investigation and received vastly more cooperation than Obama ever gave Congress. The Obama era investigations were of actual crimes (e.g. IRS abuse) and incidents (e.g. Fast and Furious; Benghazi), and not baseless fishing expeditions but they got completely stonewalled from the outset.
"As for Trump, I was also talking about the Democrats on the Mueller team."
LMAO! All you're proving is that you're still grossly ignorant since Mueller is a Republican and that was an investigation initiated by a Republican deputy AG in DoJ who appointed him, not the co-equal branch of Congress that has Constitutional oversight authority of the executive. OSC investigations serve a different purpose than congressional oversight.
What makes your point a complete farce is that Barr's DOJ refuses to share the grand jury material from Mueller's investigation with congress in the 40% of the Mueller Report that was redacted. So it's hilarious you would even try to claim that was shared with Dems. It wasn't. Congress serves the function of oversight for purposes of PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY as a co-equal branch of government. Like I said, you should try reading the Constitution.
"What makes your point a complete farce is that Barr's DOJ refuses to share the grand jury material from Mueller's investigation with congress in the 40% of the Mueller Report that was redacted."
That's because it's ILLEGAL to share that grand jury information, moron. Thank you for proving you don't give a damn about constitutional process though. It's illegal so citizens are protected from being smeared by one sided, unproved, damaging info when they haven't been tried and haven't had the opportunity to present a defense. Those of us who cherish constitutional principles understand that. You should try reading the Constitution some time. And where did you get "40%" redacted, LOL? Only a small percentage of the Mueller report was redacted and Nadler was among the group of leaders invited to view the unredacted version (obviously not including grand jury material). He refused, underscoring how disingenuous this farce is.
I said Mueller team, and I wasn't just talking about Congress. His whole team was made up of rabid Democrats, some with personal ties to the Clintons, and anyone who watched that hearing knows that Mueller was just a figurehead with Weissmann and Zebley running the witch hunt. Mueller is anti-Trump anyway, a life long establishment figure and personal buddy of James Comey with an ax to grind. Saying he's a "Republican" is as relevant as claiming Joe Scarborough, Nicole Wallace, and Bill Kristol are Republicans and can therefore be counted on to be fair to Trump. You keep tossing that "ignorant" word out when you're the one who's grossly ignorant.
lolz! You actually expect me to me to believe your constantly changing story after I kept calling you out for getting your facts wrong?
ROTFL!
Give it up. You've already proven you have no idea what you're talking about many times over. Go back to school and come back when you've improved.
You just attacked Barr for allegedly not cooperating because he didn't turn secret grand jury material over to Congress, which, again, is ILLEGAL. You also just claimed "40%" of the Mueller report was redacted when it was really about 7% (redacted with input from the Mueller team, mostly to protect ongoing cases), with congressional leaders invited to see the unredacted version. You're the one getting your facts wrong.
You're a partisan nutjob who has no idea what you're talking about when it comes to any to these topics and who clearly gets your talking points of the day from the leftist blogosphere.
You certainly don't care about the Constitution. Your whole point here that conservatives somehow don't cherish the Constitution because they haven't driven Trump from office for not playing along with Nadler's corrupt bid to harass Trump's kids and other citizens in this mad fishing expedition (aka the real threat to our republic) is equal parts stupid and insane. If you cherished constitutional order you'd be calling on Democrats to rein this crap in and move on to the people's business.
Nope. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6e, the rule requires "[a]n attorney for the government" to disclose grand jury material involving "foreign intelligence information … to any federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official's duties." Members of the House Intel Committee are "national security officials" and are thereby entitled to receive grand jury materials implicating foreign intelligence Barr is denying them in the performance of their duty of oversight.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6
That's why a petition was filed with the courts on Friday to enforce a subpoena for this material they are entitled to.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're so ignorant of the law you actually take Barr's claims at face value. You have no credibility here for anyone to take you seriously.
Wrong again. I'm glad you finally found Rule 6 but your reading comprehension sucks. First, it doesn't "require" the government attorney (Barr) to do anything but keep grand jury material secret. It says it "may" be released to certain people in narrow exceptions. You literally misread the wording. Next, those exceptions you list are executive officials whose normal duties include stopping threats, not politicians in congress. Driving home this point is the section requiring those receiving the information to "only" use it in the course of their duties and to keep it secret, which isn't what Nadler and his cronies have in mind.
If you knew anything at all about history, law, or politics you'd understand that grand jury secrecy is vital to cherished American values like innocent until proven guilty and the government not smearing uncharged people, along with eliciting information from witnesses who might be reluctant to speak publicly.
Congress has never been included among the exceptions listed. At times some have even proposed bills to change that, like in the 1980s when the DOJ argued against it saying the bill would trash separation of powers (a vital constitutional principle) by usurping the executive's enforcement powers (the bill didn't pass).
By your logic congressmen should have routine access to this material, obliterating not just the law's letter but spirit, where publicizing the info is the rare exception, not the norm.
That's likely why Dems have been pushing the "judicial proceedings" exception more than your insipid argument, the Nixon era ruling's reasoning being that impeachment was a special kind of legal proceeding, but that fails too due to multiple differences between the two cases, including there being no impeachment inquiry or proceedings underway.
Holy Shit you're ignorant. The "judicial proceedings" exception is exactly what the petition was filed under. It's also why they'll succeed in court in getting the material.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Your inability to read court filings demonstrates how ill equipped you are to speak on this subject matter. The word "impeachment" was cited in the petition 85 times. They are demanding the material they are entitled to by law in order to perform their oversight responsibility of opening an inquiry.
You must go back to school and come back when you learn to read.
Holy Shit you're ignorant. The "judicial proceedings" exception is exactly what the petition was filed under.
ROTFL! These are your words dumb dumb:
"including there being no impeachment inquiry or proceedings underway."
You once again embarrassed yourself by not reading the underlying petition that makes it clear you have no idea what you're talking about. You're so clueless that you're not even aware that the "judicial proceeding" being referred to IS an impeachment inquiry. I am using the terms interchangeably because they are synonymous in this context. You seem to think they mean different things because your reading comprehension is so poor, your legal vocabulary is nonexistent, and the subject matter is above your pay grade.
It's getting kind of boring for me to have to keep shooting down your futile attempts to save face. It feels like I'm kicking a dog when he's down. That's why I keep telling you that you're just not qualified to speak on a topic that just flies over your head. You really need to get on with your life and stop embarrassing yourself. I want to be able to see you build up your self esteem again and that's not going to happen while I keep stepping all over you.
Wrong again.
"Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) on Tuesday said he supports Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) decision to hold back on a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump, despite growing support from members of his leadership team for impeachment proceedings."
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/455366-schumer-backs-up-pelosis-resistance-to-impeachment-inquiry
LOL! Your own party's leaders reject the notion that an impeachment inquiry is underway, moron, spin by Nadler and others notwithstanding. And no, while an inquiry would qualify as impeachment proceedings the two terms are not "synonymous", as the impeachment process involves more than the inquiry. I listed both terms to be comprehensive.
Your poor grasp of basic English and general ignorance are becoming increasingly clear. You keep making it clear that you want this exchange to end but you're stuck in it, desperately trying to save face to no avail. The longer you're here the more your idiocy is exposed.
You're like a fish flopping around on dry ground. Meanwhile I'm enjoying knocking you around.
Again, the petition to the court says otherwise. I'm more than aware that Schumer and Pelosi talk out out of both sides of their mouth because they are deathly afraid of the 'I' word. But court documents don't lie, and impeachment is clearly spelled out in the petition that you're incapable of reading. The judge is going to decide the petition based on the legal basis of what's submitted, not what party leaders tell the press on the Hill.
The funny thing is that MSM doesn't read court documents either so most appear as oblivious as you are, although a few legal minds have picked up on it. JC Chair Nadler did hold a press conference last Friday announcing the petition and exactly what is in it. Impeachment is initiated in Nadler's committee. But all you need to do is read the document itself.
Suuuure, because lawyers never spin or bend the truth in court documents do they, ignoramus? LOL!
The Democrat leaders in both chambers are actually right on this one, and in a position to know. If Nadler wants to initiate impeachment proceedings he should take the vote to do so. Dems are trying to eat their cake and have it too, avoiding the backlash of a clearly unjustified impeachment while continuing their abusive, unAmerican fishing expedition.
Say....it doesn't make you nervous when I use the term "fishing expedition" does it, lol? I mean no offense to your kind.
I'm just giving you the heads up because you're not sufficiently educated to read and understand the document that spells out the impeachment inquiry in the petition to the courts.
What did happen, so you understand what is really going on, is that the full House authorized an impeachment investigation back on June 11th, when it authorized the judiciary committee to request the grand jury material pursuant to rule 6e.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/430/text
or any accompanying report, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), including Rule 6(e)(3)(E) (providing that the court may authorize disclosure of a grand-jury matter “preliminarily to…a judicial proceeding”).
LOL! I did read the petition and I never denied Nadler's spin job. I've been commenting extensively on Democrats trying to eat their cake and have it too. But Democrats, including their leaders and even Nadler, publicly conceding that they haven't launched an impeachment inquiry undermines the case that they have. Whether they succeed in their dishonest petition I haven't predicted for reasons I explained above.
You haven't presented any facts I didn't already know, while I have been correcting your many errors* in knowledge, logic, and comprehension, so your drivel about my alleged education rings desperate, hollow, and pathetic.
*A recent sterling example lest it get "lost" amid all this posting.
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d3a731e23472e263c8dcc56/Would-You-Support-a-Trump-Dictatorship?reply=5d40bf692e2055256535416b
lulz. You actually expect me to believe that when every single post I've pointed out how you got your facts wrong and you kept having to change your story from one post to the next? No worries, because you're not going to convince me I didn't school you when the narrative above proves otherwise. I'm confident any objective reader will agree with me too. But regardless, like I said, Nadler confirmed he had initiated an impeachment inquiry at his press conference when asked by the press last Friday because he talks out of both sides of his mouth. But court documents don't lie and if you had read the petition (which you hadn't, that's why you initially tried to deny an inquiry was ever opened) it makes it very clear because Impeachment is mentioned 85 times. There is no "both sides" bullshit. That's why it's so obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm done here. I've made my point and I've grown tired of listening to you expend so much effort in trying to pretend like you haven't been thoroughly schooled when you so obviously have.
LOL! I guess you're tired of flopping around. Your humiliating "40%" "redacted" faceplant laid out below was the knockout blow.
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d3a731e23472e263c8dcc56/Would-You-Support-a-Trump-Dictatorship?reply=5d40bf692e2055256535416b
Any honest person can see I've been schooling you. I had read the petition and an impeachment inquiry HASN'T been opened, as the Democrat leaders I quoted above admit. The mechanical process hasn't occurred, and there are good reasons office holders should be on record publicly making clear what they're doing on these matters. Nadler spinning otherwise...that it's something that sort of counts as an impeachment inquiry even without the formal (I would say vital) vote being taken isn't something I denied, just mocked.
Meanwhile you've had to backpedal from your contention that Barr was making up reasons not to instantly release grand jury material that's secret for good reason.
Not only have I been the one correcting your factual and comprehension errors, but you've been pushed into conceding that congressional Dems are lying, two-faced charlatans and you've been exposed as someone who couldn't care less about the Constitution. You've been crushed on the central topic of this debate.
I've given you quite the free education.
lolz. You looked up how many pages were redacted from a Vox article and you're trying to call me out for a report you never read? Hilarious. At least I read it.
shareLOL! You're accusing me of not reading the report when you're the one who repeatedly insisted 40% (almost half!) of it was blacked out, a number suspiciously identical to the factoid reported by various outfits about the percentage of pages with at least one word redacted? Either you lied about reading it and misunderstood the "40%" line some blog fed to you or you REALLY suck at math and have no sense of proportion.
But please, by all means hang around digging your own hole deeper, lol.
Clinton was attempted to be impeached by much less. Can you compare and contrast the grounds which Clinton was impeached upon, vs. the grounds in which Trump might be?
shareNo, Clinton actually committed crimes. Trump didn't. What's more Starr had no problem stating he committed crimes and laying out the evidence proving it, despite him not criminally indicting the sitting president. Mueller's team copped out because they knew they couldn't find the goods on Trump.
shareWhat crimes? As far as I can tell it involved cheating on his wife, care to elaborate on what other "crimes" there were? Do you think your boy Trump doesn't cheat on our immigrant First Lady?
sharePerjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. And in that case there was an actual underlying crime, unlike the "collusion delusion", namely the sexual harassment of Paula Jones.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/7groundsi.htm
So, when you say that, can you actually keep a straight face defending the person you are currently defending?
shareYes. The contrast is stark, as is your hypocrisy.
No perjury by Trump.
No obstruction of justice by Trump (among other things Clinton actually got Lewinsky a plush gig in exchange for filing a false affidavit).
No underlying crime by Trump (no conspiracy with Russia).
So, why wasn't Clinton removed from office with all this evidence?
Did Mueller exonerate Trump, did he say that?
Maybe you don't like to take a step back and see things for how they are rather than how you want them to be?
Democrats refused to throw Clinton out of office. It was political, not because he wasn't clearly guilty of crimes. Guilt doesn't necessarily mean removal.
Trump, on the other hand, was exonerated as a result of Mueller's report. Mueller doesn't have to say the word "exonerate". He's the adversary. Defense lawyers talk about "exoneration", not prosecutors.
Stop projecting.
Who exonenerated Trump?... no one. There was simply a lack of sustainable evidence
sharePreach to your sheep, I am not one of them.
shareLOL, that is exoneration. In fact given the rabid bias of Mueller’s team, their unlimited funding, the years spent on the witch hunt, their manpower, the media cheerleading, and their unscrupulous tactics, that they still found no evidence of collusion and couldn’t bring themselves to even claim that Trump obstructed justice (let alone prove it) is even stronger exoneration than usual. Typically people talk about someone being “exonerated” through a trial acquittal, where a prosecutor actually indicted him and still presumably thinks he’s guilty. Trump was more decisively cleared.
PS - Whether sheep or lemming, you're certainly a blind follower.
Certainly the folks at Lawfare, no pro Trump outfit, disagree with you, as do many others across the political spectrum:
"In addition, a judge overseeing the grand jury proceedings can authorize disclosure of a grand jury matter for certain purposes, including:...
The release of grand jury information to Congress does not obviously fit under any of these exceptions"
https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-report-redactions-will-congress-ever-see-all-mueller-grand-jury-material
"federal Rule 6(e)...could prohibit Barr from unsealing some documents and transcripts obtained by the grand jury presiding over Mueller’s work and releasing them to Congress. Barr would need a court’s permission to release those grand jury documents."
https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/democrats-press-full-mueller-report-gop-erects-barriers
When even liberals at sites like Rollcall are suggesting Barr's hands are legally tied, for you to say suggest that he's just making "claims" up unilaterally for no good reason illustrates your ignorance and partisan mendacity.
The recent federal court McKeever ruling clamps down on even courts’ ability to release grand jury material, reversing previous rulings that allowed for more discretion on “historically important” matters, instead strictly limiting them to the spelled out rules.
“McKeever indicates that Congress probably needs to invoke the “judicial proceeding” exception if it wants grand jury evidence. While impeachment is a judicial proceeding, congressional oversight is not, according to a D.C. district court case from 1981—and nothing in McKeever suggests otherwise.”
https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-report-redactions-will-congress-ever-see-all-mueller-grand-jury-material
Your claims have been debunked. Stop mindlessly lapping up second tier Dem talking points. Barr cares more about the Constitution than you or Nadler do.
LMAO!
Once again you confirm my point that you can't read. The judicial proceeding exception was invoked.
Why do you keep insisting on embarrassing yourself?
LOL! See my new reply above....or my previous post that you blatantly misread, the one where I explicitly said the Dems were pushing the judicial proceeding exception. Why do you keep insisting on embarrassing yourself?
Of course the problem with the Dem strategy is that there is no impeachment proceeding currently, so on merits their case is garbage. Again though, I refrain from making predictions on how judges rule given all the atrocious decisions over the years.
The point here is that you're a faceplanting partisan buffoon for suggesting that Barr just made up some excuse out of the blue for not releasing grand jury testimony that's secret by law. As even the liberal legal experts I cited to refute your ignorant claims show, he needs a court order to release it to Congress, and even that's a far from certain given the restrictions placed on courts' ability to release grand jury material.
The worst one can say about Barr is that he's erring on the side of caution and compliance with the law in accordance with protecting Americans' cherished individual rights.....you know, the opposite of your characterization.
Every time you tell me to look to your new reply you always just end up embarrassing yourself further after I do. It's really getting kind of old. You keep proving over and over again you're not mentally equipped nor sufficiently educated to read and comprehend legal documents so I'm not sure why you keep trying to pretend like you can.
shareI'm not even sure why you felt compelled to post that projection-filled drivel. In addition to pointing out your faceplants above (which hilariously keep continuing), I also posted substantive points. You didn't. You're just petering out....like a fish flopping around on dry ground, lol.
shareBecause you kept getting your facts wrong so I felt compelled to point out how obvious it was you were trying to talk about a subject matter that was way over your head.
Here's a press release that confirms what I've been beating your head over:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/addybaird/jerry-nadler-judiciary-impeachment-donald-trump-mueller
"buzzfeed news"
LOL!
"And for nearly 30 minutes, members of the Judiciary Committee argued this was not an impeachment inquiry — except for how it kind of was."
Sounds shaky. Certainly the Dem leadership rejects that notion you're peddling, as I cited above. But your buzzfeed analysis (lol) didn't have anything I haven't seen and addressed. You didn't state any facts I supposedly got wrong. I'm the one correcting your factual errors, boy.
They don't reject anything. Like I said, they speak out of both sides of their mouth. It entirely depends on who is asking the question as to what their answer will be.
share"They don't reject anything. Like I said, they speak out of both sides of their mouth. It entirely depends on who is asking the question as to what their answer will be."
Well they reject it publicly, lol. You're not exactly making a strong case on their behalf. No judge in his right mind should violate the principle of grand jury secrecy to indulge a nakedly partisan fishing expedition when the politicians are publicly denying they've launched the process that might qualify them to receive the material they're seeking (even that's debatable, especially given the recent ruling restricting court discretion). Again, not every judge is in his right mind, so I don't make predictions on that sort of thing.
The material is likely irrelevant to a potential impeachment anyway. Weissmann and his team of rabid hacks aggregated all the most negative material they could about Trump in the "Mueller" report already, and Trump has said he's fine with everything being released. If anybody gets new smears on them it's more likely to be family members or other associates or private citizens not featured already. And Democrats couldn't care less about that, which is disgusting for those of us who cherish the Constitution.
I don't need to make a strong case when the case is laid out in the petition.
shareSure, lol. Why use your brain when you can just let Nadler's dishonest spin do your talking for you? Oh and fail to address the other points I made.
shareYou're the one listening to Nadler. I'm going by what's written in the petition that you haven't read. Big difference. It's not what they say but what they do.
shareI don't know why you keep claiming I haven't read the petition, unless it's to distract from you getting caught having lied about reading the Mueller report (which your "40%" "redacted" faceplant made embarrassingly clear).
But I agree with your last sentence. What they haven't "done" is the mechanical process of launching an impeachment proceeding, which should hold more sway than what Nadler says in his court filing.
lulz. You're talking out of your depth again trying to pretend you even know what the "mechanical process of launching an impeachment proceeding" even is when I've already explained it to you.
shareWrong. I've been explaining to you. You've been faceplanting.
Weren't you leaving? Did you lie about that too, lol?
Why are you so bitter just because I called out on your ignorance? You should be more gracious and appreciative.
shareGuess that answers the question about whether you lied when you claimed you were leaving, lol. Good.
Your ignorance has been exposed all over this page. If you want to hang around, then defend your claim that Vox, Democrat leaders' quotes (via The Hill), Lawfare (anti-Trump site), and Rollcall (Democrat site) are all "right wing talking point", LOL. I'll explain why you're wrong about each source.
PS - You really should be paying me tuition for educating you.
You're just so bitter about being wrong.
You should try and be a better person by acting with more class.
So you'll neither defend nor retract your false claim about all those sources that I used to prove you wrong up and down this thread being "right wing", lol?
I mercifully accept your surrender, classless though it was.
That you think a president faced with the unprecedented harassment Trump has weathered merely invoking some executive privilege amounts to running "roughshod over the Constitution and rule of law" shows what an ignorant partisan hypocrite you are. Feel free to quote where the Constitution empowers Congress to either dig through the president's life history looking for any crimes it can find or to hound private citizens in that agenda.
Again, presidents including Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson have outright disobeyed Supreme Court rulings without becoming "dictators". Obama unilaterally rewriting legislation on a routine basis came far closer to tyranny than anything Trump has done, even jarring various famous liberal legal scholars (e.g. Garrett Epps, Jonathan Turley, Alan Dershowitz).
Only a mouth frothing buffoon would claim Trump is more of a danger to the Constitution than these past presidents and others have been.
This is a bizarre post since I never mentioned any of the topics of the irrelevant tangents you spew forth. Get it together man.
shareI literally quoted you in the first part, lol, and issued you a challenge that you dodged. The rest deals with the thread topic and the context of this discussion. Try to keep up.
shareThat sounds like you would support a Trump dictatorship. Correct?
shareSounds like you've got brain damage.
shareAnd, like all Trumpers, your true colors come spilling out when cornered in an argument. That's what happens when you attempt to wage your argument 100% based on "My guy Trump did this but Obama did that".
Next time try waging an argument of substance instead of pulling the usual Trumper deflectathon and making a damn fool out of yourself.
Too late. You lost all merit as a poster here the very moment you pulled the old "but Obama".
Tsk tsk tsk. Quite disappointing, really.
No, that was just an honest assessment of the post. Baselessly saying I support a dictatorship isn't substantive. It's just name calling. Frankly, assuming you're not a troll or a sock account, your substanceless, ludicrous, and unjustifiably hostile posts here indicate you may have some real mental issues too.
shareThe bootlicking shill sure is busy defending Trump. A dozen posts a day, yet getting nowhere :)
shareThe guy is such a clown. All the countless hours he spent above researching grand jury secrecy law on lawfare to defend Bill Barr is all for naught because he never bothered to read the underlying petition that refutes his point from the outset.
The boy really could have saved himself so much time and humiliation.
I guess I should feel grateful for the fact that, so far, every single Trump supporter I've ever seen (both online and offline) sounds like a blithering idiot. It means our country hasn't gone insane and only our lowest common denominator population (and the filthy rich) love the moron.
shareLOL. It's a circle jerk of three morons, licking their wounds from the Mueller hearing fail and their debate losses here. Y'all are pumping each other up like a support group. That's adorable.
shareLOL! Buddy-boy, if you think my posts are hostile then you have some real issues of insecurity. :)
Quite being a wimp and grow a back-bone. You're disrespecting posters left and right and then whining like a little b!tch when people (rightfully) call you on your stupidity. You not only suck at forum debates but your choice of president is as laughable as your misplaced "confidence" you seem to be brimming with over thinking you've "won" anything in this argument. You've made a damn fool of yourself and only served to make the buffoon you voted for look like "The guy who only has idiots and psychopaths as supporters". Congratulations. Fortunately for you, donald will take any flogging he can get because of his raging ego.
So, congrats! You've scored your cheeto points. :)
No, I was genuinely concerned about your mental state. It's almost impossible to read the BS you just posted here without picturing you foaming at the mouth, lol. You're seething with rage.
Whether you're just a really sore loser or there's some deeper problem, I wish you good health.
What you quoted from me is technically accurate. Trump has run roughshod over the Constitution and the rule of law and I detailed specifically how in my first post.
Everything else in your rambling diatribe was projection and straw manning of you claiming I said things I never did. Get it together man.
I didn't realize "roughshod" was a technical term, lol. No, you failed miserably to support that contention. Above you even ignorantly attacked Barr for NOT breaking the law. You're a joke.
shareIt's empirically accurate. I know you don't know what that means so look it up.
"Above you even ignorantly attacked Barr for NOT breaking the law."
LMAO! No, above you once again demonstrated your gross ignorance of the law with your blind faith in Barr. Thank you for cementing my point. You should try and have a little self respect and stop embarrassing yourself trying to talk on subjects you clearly know nothing about. I love clowning neophytes like you.
LOL! I just ripped you to shreds on the law above. Apart from not knowing the context you didn't even read the plain text correctly. How embarrassing for you. You have no idea what "empirically accurate" means (maybe you got the concept from one of my posts discussing empiricism), and you're grossly ignorant of US history, or else you would have at least tried to support your extreme charge that Trump is running "roughshod over the Constitution and rule of law" with a lot more than your one claim that he's not turning over all the documents or testimony Nadler wants.
Aside from you being wrong on the legal substance, either way you must be unfamiliar of the long history of presidents and congressmen clashing over stuff like executive privilege to ascribe to it the hysterical hyperbole "running roughshod" over the Constitution and rule of law, even in the face of me citing more dramatic controversies from past presidents, some of whom are honored as among our greatest.
You're not just an ignorant partisan, you're a drama queen.
If you truly gave a damn about the Constitution or healthy government you wouldn’t be slavishly supporting this off the rails political witch hunt anyway. You're finished, eyedef. You can go now.
ROTFL!
I love how you keep coming back and trying to prove you have any idea what you're talking about only to demonstrate your ignorance all over again. You're not going to win on the legal substance of the argument or the facts because you have such a poor handle on both.
With neither the facts nor the law on your side, all you're good for is pounding the table in epic frustration. lulz. Watching you implode has been a gory affair ... but amusing all the same.
I love you how you keep posturing as an expert only to repeatedly faceplant. Your most recent flubs above were your most embarrassing yet. You misread my post (as anyone can scan up and read for himself) even worse than you misread the law's plain text earlier (as anyone can also see).
You ludicrously claimed "40%" of the Mueller report was redacted (actually 7%). When you attacked Barr for supposedly unilaterally making up some bogus reason for withholding grand jury material that's secret by law, I buried you with quotes from multiple even anti-Trump legal experts saying the opposite. You've shown a gross ignorance of US history, law, and basic constitutional principles. Again, I admit that kicking you around is becoming more fun the longer this goes on.
Democrats decided they wanted to impeach Trump before he even took office and have since gone about desperately looking for some excuse to do so. For you to support this strategy of politics by criminal investigation, trying to remove an elected president because you're upset about who won the election, proves you're the one eager to run roughshod over the Constitution.
It is about 40% redactions. I know because unlike you I've actually read the Report whereas you rely on right wing talking heads to interpret the report for you.
That's why you're a neophyte who is literally not qualified to talk about anything for which you speak. You can't even get basic facts right.
You mean "right wing talking heads" like the radical leftists at vox, LOL!
"total content redacted - 7.25%"
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/19/18485535/mueller-report-redactions-data-chart
They even provide a helpful visual. Oh look, they also include a line about 40% of the PAGES HAVING a redaction (mostly small lengths).
You probably read that somewhere and got confused, resulting in your factually absurd claim that 40% of the report was redacted. Or else you read it on a low rent leftist blog that confused it and then you lied about it. Maybe you're not smart enough to understand the difference between the two facts. Let's see if you retract your false claim.
I read the report months ago, moron. I cite quotes and other publicly verifiable evidence (mostly from leftist sources here, btw, not conservative ones) so you don't have to take my word for something. If you had been properly educated you'd understand the fallacy of essentially saying "trust me, dude" on a point of contention. And maybe you wouldn't keep faceplanting and getting basic facts wrong.
I've never seen you cite anything but right wing talking points, so I'll just have to suspend belief. But I will concede I got the 40% figure wrong because unlike you I don't have a problem admitting my mistake. Grand jury material is separate from redactions though and congress is seeking both.
shareActually, as Vox points out, a portion of the redacted 7.25% is grand jury material, but either you lied about reading the report or you're even stupider than you've already shown yourself to be since no one with a triple digit IQ could read it and believe the redactions are anywhere near 40% (almost half?!?). The truth is most likely what I suggested, that you googled up a liberal blog and misunderstood the factoid about 40% of the pages having at least one word redacted, unless that number's a heck of a coincidence, lol.
Gee, I'm glad you finally admitted you were wrong on something when it's as spectacularly obvious, objective, and embarrassing as this, but you've got a mountain of stuff wrong here as I've laid out all over this thread.
To wit...just now you claim I haven't cited anything but "right wing talking points", when anyone can see I've quoted and linked to Democrat leaders' quotes (vie The Hill), Vox, Lawfare (anti-Trump site), and Rollcall (Democrat site), proving you wrong on various points, in addition to exposing your reading comprehension and logical errors.
You've also been pushed into conceding that congressional Democrats are lying, two-faced charlatans and exposed as a partisan hack who couldn't care less about the Constitution (the point of this topic, remember?)
You lack the education to understand how thoroughly your ass has been handed to you.
Again, you're talking out of your depth again. There's grand jury material that's not in the report. Not all the grand jury material makes it into the report. You keep proving you have no idea what you're talking about.
shareI never said all the grand jury material was in the report, moron. I just said some of it was included in response to you saying "Grand jury material is separate from redactions". You keep tossing out straw man arguments, desperately flailing around because you have no idea what you're talking about and no substantive arguments.
shareWell obviously some of the grand jury material is going to be in the report's redactions. That goes without saying. You must not understand what a grand jury is to not be aware of that. I said grand jury material is separate from the report. This is true. These are the unedited transcripts. So again, you're making a fool out of yourself by proving you have no idea what you're talking about.
shareLOL. Of course I know what a grand jury is, moron. I just added a brief aside clarifying your sloppy, potentially misleading statement. I was even nice and matter of fact about it (in that clause anyway).
Your straw man arguments are getting increasingly desperate and pitiful.
You're changing your story again to try and cover the fact you didn't know what a grand jury was. Why do you keep doing this? It just makes you look fake.
shareWrong, lol. You really did claim that Vox, Lawfare, Democrat leaders, and Rollcall are all "right wing" though, as anyone can see. I'm still waiting for you to support or retract that lie.
share[deleted]
Now, why am I not surprised to hit key words like "Obama" and "democrats" in your replies here? Classic Trump support deflection answers. You guys are literally incapable of staying on topic and defending that buffoon you voted for on his own merits. If you didn't have the option to deflect, you'd have nothing at all.
PS: Holding your choice of Trump up as a constant comparison piece to Obama just reeks of insecurity and lack of faith in your own candidate. At the end of the day, every argument you make--every post you write--all essentially boils down to you elaborately stating: "My guy is still better than your guy" and "your guy did it first"--like ALL Trumpers do in these arguments.
No, it's called providing perspective, a vital facet of analysis that lunatics worried about Trump somehow becoming a "dictator" (LMFAO!) are sorely in need of.
shareVery well said. I think it’s past time to consider measures to diminish the power of those bureaucrats and judges.
shareSo I take it you don't believe in checks and balances. Would you support a Trump dictatorship?
shareA lot of Trumpers seem to be fans of the abolition of checks and balances (the very thing that prevents us from becoming a dictatorship in the first place) with how they all bash ANYONE who goes against Trump on ANYTHING.
I've even heard them say things like: "they should abolish the 9th circuit" and "President Trump shouldn't have to run anything by SCOTUS!" and other such nonsense.
Actually it sounds like he favors checks and balances, in this case checking the overreach by unelected, unaccountable career bureaucrats and activist judges over the decades. The biggest danger to our constitutional republic comes from an establishment class, representing a minority, that views itself as a ruling class and elections as dog and pony shows and has disdain for the American middle class. It's the Peter Strzok mind set ("No. We'll stop it." - Trump becoming president) that's not aberrational but widespread. A partisan judge here or there reliably striking down just about every policy the elected president enacts, no matter how obviously constitutional it is, is a problem even if those bad rulings are eventually overturned by more responsible courts much later.
The threat to America right now isn't a dictatorship but an unaccountable oligarchy.
Career bureaucrats are accountable to political appointees made by the president to lead their agencies. That you're not aware of this makes you sound like an ignoramus. But what else is new?
shareAnd notoriously difficult to fire due to a slew of rules built in to protect them. A separate piece of legislation was famously passed a while back just to allow the government to fire incompetent VA officials, for example. That you're not aware of this makes you sound like an ignoramus. But what else is new?
PS - "40%" redacted. LOL.
PPS - flop, flop, flop.
Yeah, I've heard a lot of that garbage before--particularly that asinine "Trump 2020/Ivanka 2024/Trump, Jr. 2032". Some have had a variation of that list leading all the way up to Barron, I sh!t you not. I'd really hope they were kidding, but...they voted for Donald Trump--ANYTHING is possible.
shareI'm guessing you supported "Clinton 2016", lol.
shareNo, I didn't support either candidate.
Yet another Trumper cliche: deflect to Hillary and accuse the anti-Trump person of being a "libruhl" and "Hillary voter".
Any more cliche, canned responses you want to dish to me?
Actual deflection is all this BS about "Russia" to hide the very real Democratic corruption exposed by Wikileaks, or this idiocy about Trump becoming a "dictator" when he famously hasn't even so far had the usual control over his own executive branch that presidents typically enjoy, let alone areas presidents don't control.
But by all means continue contributing your usual level of substance to discourse, crying and fretting about a potential "Barron" presidency decades from now, lol.
Heck no I wouldn't support a Trump Dictatorship! He is the new Hitler, so it might be already here, but no I would NOT support it!
share