If you disagree with something I've said, intelligently disagree with it explaining what you disagree with and why you disagree with it. Worthless posts like the one I am responding to do nothing to further the conversation and come across as a child stomping his feet out of anger.
Funny story ... every time I read one of your posts I think of ... a child stomping his feet out of anger.
The system works Trump can't build his wall.or do stupid travel bans without Congress This is what an overdramatized thread looks like
All we have is a president who promises **** he can't do by himself because the system the forefathers built still works
The best part of this **** is that it's coming from so called federalists. When I was in school the federalists had a completely different raison d'etre - to promote freedom couched as states rights, but really it was about the freedom, you know? I thought this was all bullshit of course but they were smart and I could not prove it, they confounded me something awful. But really i suspected it was states rights in the same way the Klan and other white supremacists successfully got the civil war taught to generations as states rights....which it was...the right of slavers to force the universe into their sick world. Turns out I was right and the same tools I knew in school as federalists are now tools of the regime which supports states rights to oppress only and openly fights those that don't. Hi neomi rao! As always, respect for principle ("activist judges"...lol) only boils down to the ones that the oppressors like, which really aren't any at all.
Honestly, I think he is not bs'ing but it's really what he believes. He is so mentally brainwashed he twists everything in his mind to justify his hate of the left while trying to somehow believe he is just impartial and fair. He has no idea how biased everything he spews actually is. That's why it comes across as f'd-up bs. Only explanation. The dude is mental. After all he calls himself "the great" so you already know he probably has NPD.
Rigging an election fundamentally undermines democracy. Period. That's not hyperbole or dramatic. It's pretty universally accepted that's exactly what the Russians tried to do. Even Trump himself acknowledged such. Granted, it's hasn't been proven, yet, that Trump participated in rigging the election. What we know is several people close to him have pleaded guilty to related crimes. We have to allow the investigation to complete. If they determine a crime has been committed and Trump was criminally or negligently involved, then Checks/Balances must kick in. So far, no crisis. If there is a crisis, it's that Republicans, whom happen to be in power, have done little to nothing about preventing the Russians from doing it again. I'd like to hear more about what our government is doing to prevent this in the future.
Right, which is why it is so bad that Hillary and the DNC rigged their primary election. You know, the only part of the previous election that was actually "rigged" unless you count the FBI sweeping Hillary's crimes under the rug instead of doing their job and recommending indictment for the multiple crimes they uncovered indisputable evidence of. I would agree those kinds of things fundamentally undermine democracy and something should be done about it.
Classic "whataboutism". Try to stay on topic, mmmkay. If you want to start another thread about that, knock yourself out. I'd like our current government to take Russian influence more seriously. The question is, why haven't they? Makes you go "hmmmm". In the meantime, the investigation continues.
That WAS on topic, you were talking about rigging elections and that's what I was talking about. In fact, the 2 situations I talked about were the only legitimate instances where you can say "rigging" had any potential effect on the outcome. If Hillary doesn't rig the primary, perhaps there is a different outcome. If Hillary is indicted and support shifts to a more legitimate candidate, perhaps there is a different outcome.
No, the thread topic is discussing a potential constitution crisis. Clinton does not hold office and her party is not in power so she's not in the equation here. Many people would agree with you that she should be further investigated but it has no bearing on our current situation. Cut out your whataboutism. Don't try to water down the importance of our current situation with your "squirrel" tactics. The Trump investigation must continue. Everything that is being investigated is of Trump's own doing. Clinton has ZERO bearing on the Trump investigation. Zero, nada, niet. [Edit: Fixed typo from squire to squirrel.]
Don't you think that rigging elections causes a potential constitutional crisis? I'm pretty sure that was what you were saying right? Well Hillary and the DNC did rig their primary election. That actually happened. We also know that the FBI refused to recommend indictment for crimes their investigation found indisputable evidence of and that is the sole reason Hillary was still the candidate. If they did their job, it would have given Democrats a chance to vote for another candidate and the election might have turned out completely different. Those are legitimate issues from the last election that could have very well changed the outcome of the election, the Russia BS had no impact on the election and let's face it, the investigation has moved on from that after no evidence was found. Now they are shifting gears to trying to prove some kind of obstruction of justice so that they will have something against the president. If that fails, they'll look for something else. So really, we're either going to talk about rigged elections, or we're going to talk about the Trump investigation, but those are 2 completely different conversations.
"potential" is the operative word in your whole post. You are talking about what-if scenario's( related to Clinton.) The OP is asking about THIS scenario (related to Trump.) Stop trolling. Yawn.
I wasn't talking with the OP, I was talking to you talking about rigged elections by bringing up the 2 examples where "rigging" potentially changed the outcome of the election....while you want to talk about a situation that had no impact on the election whatsoever. I'm talking about what actually happened, you are talking about what didn't happen.
I'm talking about what is "happening", which is the topic. Topic=Are we in crisis? I answered "No". But I stated we need to let the investigation continue. You on the other hand have the odd-ball opinion that the "factual" events that led to the outcome in the DNC primary was improper (which would suggest we are already in a constitutional crisis) . Simultaneously, you dismiss the need to complete the existing investigation. So which is it Bobby, are we in a crisis? Yes or No?
A constitutional crisis? No, but the corruption in the DOJ and FBI would amount to a crisis of a sort. Also, I'd imagine the DNC rigging their primary would be a crisis within that party but doesn't amount to a "constitutional crisis". When it comes to the Russia investigation that is no longer about Russia anymore, I think it would be for the best to wrap things up fairly soon but once a witch hunt begins, it's hard to end it without a body count so I would expect it to continue until they find something, anything to go on or until Trump is out of office.
It's fine to guess that it is no longer about Russia, but you don't know that unless you are pretty high up on Mueller's team. You don't know the expected time it takes to investigate nor do you know the reason for that time frame. Russia may well be a continued focus of the investigation but they keep finding more evidence of other crimes and that has to be investigated and have the evidence collected as well. It's a guess but not different or less credible than your guess about Russia no longer being a focus of the investigation.
There actually hasn't been any evidence of any crime by the president that has become public, and if they legitimately found anything solid, we'd have heard about it by now. That's why they keep expanding things, they are hoping to find something, anything that they can go on. Thus far the investigation has essentially been a "nothing burger"
