Grand jury votes to indict Trump
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
When I think of a standard republican in my lifetime, I think of a hard core capitalist.
That's not a bad thing, I consider myself a capitalist.
It's the only social hierarchy system that is fair to everyone, in theory. A monarchy is determined by blood. A fascist state is determined by group parameters (race, religion, etc).
Capitalism is the only social system where, in theory, a minnow can become a shark, go to the top of the hierarchy. When you're at the top, you are admired for your achievement because we all have the same opportunity, in theory.
True conservative republicans to me believe strongly in that set up and acknowledges that you have to have losers to have winners so....if you are a loser than it's your fault. You have to take personal responsibility for your failures.
That ideology doesn't offend me in the least. Where I disagree is that I think we can do a better job looking after one another (as there are exponentially more minnows in the hierarchy that we can't ignore).
I also believe that having a strong public option keeps unbridled capitalism in check (as capitalism keeps stagnation from public works).
The biggie of course is identifying and correcting advantages that some have had over others. That's where most of the 'arguments' between the two really fire up.
Those are two basic positions we can have without hating each other.
What we've become today is a really dark spot as the left sees a populous, strongman movement taking over the capitalists while the populous sees socialists/communists.
Two totally opposite social political systems that are not compatible with each other.
As I posted earlier, Trump motivates his opponents about as much as his supporters, i.e. attacking the judge and prosecutor today and allowing his son to attack the judge's daughter today. Not the tactics of a leader.
Then if he gets further indicted by the Republican-controlled court system in Georgia, no one that voted against Trump in 2020 will second guess their decision to defeat him.
And don't forget the National Enquirer.
I'm guessing MyTeam never settled one case in his entire career by transferring the rights to the secret to The National Enquirer for confidentiality.
I think he figured out that appearing smart was a negative in the GOP. So he used "simple and folksy".
It is almost exactly what Scott Adams thought of Trump when he labelled Trump a great communicator. If one listens to Trump in interviews from the '80s, he spoke in a way that was completely different than today. Either Adams is right, or Trump has had a neurological event. Either way, it worked well.
You got much wrong there. Florida was called for Gore before the polls were closed in the panhandle. That was wrong, and the call was wrong. The economy and stock market was doing very well until his last year when we hand the financial related recession. Presidents don’t cause these things. We went into Afghanistan after Bin Laden and the Taliban before Iraq. We went into Iraq for many reasons, agreed to by both parties and the UN. You can argue that we shouldn’t have, and with 20/20 hindsight I would agree.
No One Is Above The Law? Give Me A Break
For many of the left, the legal system is no longer just a tool of criminal justice but a way to exact poetic political justice.
thefederalist.com
Pretty good examples here
No One Is Above The Law? Give Me A Break
For many of the left, the legal system is no longer just a tool of criminal justice but a way to exact poetic political justice.
Pretty good examples here
If I could write BS as well as they do, I too could have a job writing BS. He makes it sound like ONLY Democrats are immune to prosecution. He mentions Holder ignoring a congressional subpoena, guess what, a lot of Republicans ignore congressional subpoenas. 4 in the House ignored House J6 subpoenas. That didn't make his list for some reason, I am sure an accidental oversight.
He mentions Clapper and Brennan lying under oath. Hmm, perhaps he forgot a whole host of Trump Cabinet officials, surely a mistake in memory:
Opinion: Lying to Congress — Harm, But No Foul - Roll Call
It is a serious offense to lie to Congress — except when Congress doesn’t care. The leaders of the 115th Congress couldn’t care less. In Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s Senate, there’s no penalty — not even a mildly worded reproof — when Cabinet nominees lie under oath. So, with both frequency...
So if he wanted to make a fair argument that we let people get away with crimes, he failed miserably. If he just wants to be a 2-bit partisan hack, A+.
Here's the question, are you willing to state categorically that some people are above the law? They shouldn't be. They shouldn't be beneath the law. That's why if you look my standard has been "what happens to ordinary Joe in this situation". Rock suggested Cohen fit that as he was involved in this specific crime. The discussion yesterday that moving this up to felonies is based on a novel concept makes me now doubt that this fits the standard. Novel sort of is clear in implying ordinary Joe hasn't faced this.
But we didn't import kings, queens, dukes, and earls specifically because we didn't like having people above the law. This case appears to fail the ordinary Joe standard, as do many of them above. But it is bipartisan and it should be corrected.
I disagree with this part. I think you are misremembering just how crappy the early 2000's were financially.
The dot-com bubble had just burst in the 1999-2000 timeframe and tech sectors were taking a bath in the stock market (For examples, Hewlitt-Packard's stock price in June 2000 was $20.57, in October of 2002 it was $3.72. Lucent Technologies had a stock price of $112 in January of 1999, in March of 2003, it was $1.31. Then 9/11 occurred. Gas prices almost doubled from 2002 ($1.35) to 2005 ($2.57) which had a cascade effect on the economy (and they increased further to $3.25 by 2008). Shipping prices increased accordingly and we had steel shortages across the country that affected all construction markets. Now in fairness, most of this was due to 9/11 and China's rapid expansion at that time, so GWB wasn't really at fault for any of that.
We had a housing boom in the mid-2000's which helped pick the economy back up for a year or two, but it was a bubble that burst in 2008 which led to the really low point of the recession that you are referring to.
Again, I don't blame that on George either. He kinda suffered from being president during a pretty crappy time.
Last edited:
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I don't think this narrative is correct, in the sense that Bush wasn't acting a part. He just is simple and folksy.
Being simple and folksy doesn't mean you have a low IQ (despite what New Yorkers and Bostonians might think). But the notion that Bush could have spoken eloquently and hyper-verbally, ala some Aaron Sorkin character, is almost certainly false.
For the record, I doubt people like Reagan, GWB, or Biden have IQs north of 110 or 115, maybe. Wouldn't surprise me if they were in the 95-105 range. That's not to say that's a disqualifier for the presidency, in my mind. An average IQ guy can end up being a "good" president, I think.
They are legitimate examples as are yours of people being deemed above the law.If I could write BS as well as they do, I too could have a job writing BS. He makes it sound like ONLY Democrats are immune to prosecution. He mentions Holder ignoring a congressional subpoena, guess what, a lot of Republicans ignore congressional subpoenas. 4 in the House ignored House J6 subpoenas. That didn't make his list for some reason, I am sure an accidental oversight.
He mentions Clapper and Brennan lying under oath. Hmm, perhaps he forgot a whole host of Trump Cabinet officials, surely a mistake in memory:
Opinion: Lying to Congress — Harm, But No Foul - Roll Call
It is a serious offense to lie to Congress — except when Congress doesn’t care. The leaders of the 115th Congress couldn’t care less. In Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s Senate, there’s no penalty — not even a mildly worded reproof — when Cabinet nominees lie under oath. So, with both frequency...rollcall.com
So if he wanted to make a fair argument that we let people get away with crimes, he failed miserably. If he just wants to be a 2-bit partisan hack, A+.
Here's the question, are you willing to state categorically that some people are above the law? They shouldn't be. They shouldn't be beneath the law. That's why if you look my standard has been "what happens to ordinary Joe in this situation". Rock suggested Cohen fit that as he was involved in this specific crime. The discussion yesterday that moving this up to felonies is based on a novel concept makes me now doubt that this fits the standard. Novel sort of is clear in implying ordinary Joe hasn't faced this.
But we didn't import kings, queens, dukes, and earls specifically because we didn't like having people above the law. This case appears to fail the ordinary Joe standard, as do many of them above. But it is bipartisan and it should be corrected.
Were his examples of people being deemed to be above the law?
I think alot of what happens in the world has a much bigger affect on how we view presidents as being good / successful.
People tend to remember favorably the presidents that presided over strong economies and without wars, regardless of how effective / smart they were (Reagan, Clinton, Obama late term / Trump before Covid, etc.)
It's the ones that lead well during times of crisis that get the most respect (Washington, Lincoln, Eisenhower/Truman, etc.)
I'd probably say high morals is more important than high IQ as long as you can surround yourself with people that know what they are doing and willing to listen to them.
Yes, but he only used 1 set trying to show ONLY Democrats do such things. That narrative is false.
Now the question I have asked like 4 times and no one answers, do any of you believe some people SHOULD be above the law?
I do not, I think we need to return to accountability.
For example, find the times I have complained about Republicans wanting to investigate Biden? If he has violated laws we deserve to know.
Case Against Donald Trump Leaves Defense Ample Openings, Say Legal Authorities
Defense attorneys and legal experts see places in the charges brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg that Trump’s legal team might try to exploit. Others see efficiency.
www.wsj.com
Most of any major politicians have writers write for them. He could have sounded much more like an Aaron Sorkin character. They wanted to lean into the folksy.
A job like president requires a minimum intelligence, I have no idea what that number is but I will throw out 90 to use as a placeholder. Anything above that can be good. But far more important in my mind is curiosity. Does the person desire to learn, to ask questions? An IQ of 200 would not help someone who doesn't care to learn the issues.
And to the point, there are a lot of people who would not vote for a Sorkin character even if they fit their politics. Jack Kemp was a specific example.
I do not believe certain people should be above the law.
Great, now how do we make it happen?
I worry Trump's indictment is the opposite problem. But at some point we will need to prosecute politicians IF they meet the ordinary Joe standard.
It has to start with recognition. Were any of the examples, in the article that I linked and you agreed were legitimate, deemed above the law? It has to be applied consistently. I’m not holding my breath. The people saying Trump is not above the law…are correct. But that statement doesn’t hold water based on the other examples
Well, if they meet the ordinary Joe standard - as in if an ordinary Joe is prosecuted for the same conduct - then by all means, prosecute them.
The issue is what happens when ordinary Joes aren't offered the opportunity to engage in the same conduct . . . as happens when special people have access to special (classified) information. We have to balance the opportunity to have qualified people in those roles against the harm to the country from their violation of the trust placed in them.
You mean like . . . the public option providing competition for private business?
*shudder*
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
In only one sense, I can think of: I don't think it's wise for a sitting President to have his attention diverted from his ultimate responsibilities by protracted, serious litigation.
Lots of details to work out on this. But I'll give you a real-world example of my concern: Clinton went to the SCt. and lost (9-0, I believe) asking for the Paula Jones litigation to be stalled while he was in office. The suit proceeded, and I think he reacted to some world events in response to that litigation and fallout--Lewinski and lying under oath in the Jones suit. He had a chance to take out Bin Laden by sending in missiles and demurred in 1998 and I think he might have been thinking "will people think I'm doing this just to distract from Lewinski?"
I might be wrong about that being part of his motivations. But it's certainly possible that something like that could occur. So that's my one example. I'd give a sitting President special treatment in the delay of litigation against him while he is office.
(For the nightmare scenario where a sitting President murders someone in broad daylight, you impeach and remove and then try him).
Destroy the country even more. Hahaha. Biden is gonna be an easy act to follow for anyone. A 3rd grader could fix his mess. Lol
Yeah, but it changed his behavior. Is the juice (changed behavior) worth the squeeze? 🤷♂️
This is why parliamentary elections might be worth the change. Voters can more easily force a politician to resign, under threat of losing because of the scandal.
I don't think the primary is the issue. The Dems want to keep all this going through the general election.
I don't think this affects the primary that much, either way.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Practically, I can't see the U.S. ever changing to a parliamentary system. Maybe one of the resulting splinter nations will adopt it after a break up of the United States, though.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dang it, I was going to post that article.No One Is Above The Law? Give Me A Break
For many of the left, the legal system is no longer just a tool of criminal justice but a way to exact poetic political justice.
Pretty good examples here
It's too bad the dupes here won't read it.
This may be the biggest 'whutabout' post ever posted on this board.If I could write BS as well as they do, I too could have a job writing BS. He makes it sound like ONLY Democrats are immune to prosecution. He mentions Holder ignoring a congressional subpoena, guess what, a lot of Republicans ignore congressional subpoenas. 4 in the House ignored House J6 subpoenas. That didn't make his list for some reason, I am sure an accidental oversight.
He mentions Clapper and Brennan lying under oath. Hmm, perhaps he forgot a whole host of Trump Cabinet officials, surely a mistake in memory:
Opinion: Lying to Congress — Harm, But No Foul - Roll Call
It is a serious offense to lie to Congress — except when Congress doesn’t care. The leaders of the 115th Congress couldn’t care less. In Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s Senate, there’s no penalty — not even a mildly worded reproof — when Cabinet nominees lie under oath. So, with both frequency...
So if he wanted to make a fair argument that we let people get away with crimes, he failed miserably. If he just wants to be a 2-bit partisan hack, A+.
Here's the question, are you willing to state categorically that some people are above the law? They shouldn't be. They shouldn't be beneath the law. That's why if you look my standard has been "what happens to ordinary Joe in this situation". Rock suggested Cohen fit that as he was involved in this specific crime. The discussion yesterday that moving this up to felonies is based on a novel concept makes me now doubt that this fits the standard. Novel sort of is clear in implying ordinary Joe hasn't faced this.
But we didn't import kings, queens, dukes, and earls specifically because we didn't like having people above the law. This case appears to fail the ordinary Joe standard, as do many of them above. But it is bipartisan and it should be corrected.
"It's OK if Democrats broke the law, because you didn't mention Republicans who did". When the article totally destroys the DEMOCRAT lie that 'no one is above the law'.
I agree there are issues with a sitting president. But I'm also not sure granting them immunity is good either. If their party controls Congress, effectively blocking impeachment, do we set up a case where we have a king? I'm not sure that we aren't stuck with the least objectionable.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
It's not immunity--a suit should be filed. Instead of dismissing it, though, it should be delayed.
We don't have a king because they can be removed, their term is limited in time, and they are still operating in a system of checks and balances.
Demurred? He sent a huge missile strike against al Quaida in 1998 in Afghanistan.
Operation Infinite Reach - Wikipedia
We have had a problem with classified and it has been well documented. Aloha and Bing would be in deep feces if they had done what some in the hierarchy have done. The general rule for higher-ups is that if they return the documents they are OK. I don't get it but it has happened often.
Lying under oath should be an offense. That would have included Clinton. I don't like how Starr came about, but that is irrelevant to the issue.
I think that both parties want it this way as they both know they will benefit. Like I said, an ordinary Joe standard.
Just a question shooter...Not trying to start anything...What did you not like about where we were as a country before covid hit when Trump was president?
