attrayant

8 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

he dealt with old school racists

I want a president who knows how to deal with racists.  Sure beats having a president who is an actual racist.

8 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

and he is apologetic about being white.

This is in reference to what?  Here's what I can find in the OP about Biden and apologies:

"I’m disappointed that he hasn’t issued an immediate apology"

"Biden did not apologise for his remarks"

9 hours ago, Guitarzan said:

Bernie isn’t just a socialist,  (which is a nice sanitized word for communist) he’s a communist.

Socialism is a balance between collectivism and individualism, with the balance being managed by a democratically-elected government.  In both true capitalism and true communism, the government is supposed to be hands-off.  Neither of these systems are workable since too many people won't be willing to follow the rules or might show bias/favoritism.  Clearly, some level of government involvement is required. 

Since some of us seem to have very basic, fundamental misunderstandings about the various systems of government and markets, I recommend this explainer video.

The Dirty Words of Economics

29 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

Oh, I see, so it is perfectly acceptable to pay for a foreigner

I am going to stop reading right there because you still have not formed an accurate understanding of reality.  No candidate "paid a foreigner" any more than you paid a foreigner when you bought coffee at Starbucks.

Quote

If Trump Jr. had simply hired a law firm to listen to this woman's story

It still would have been wrong, because (in your hypothetical) he was aware of the foreigner's offer and hired a law firm specifically to act as cover for his desire to get information from a foreign national.

Quote

BTW- there is no law in America making any of this illegal.  

 

Caution - reading the following may severely damage your ignorance:

Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510)

A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.

Were you really not aware of this statute, as much as it has been in the news over the past two years?

Quote

If Piers Morgan went directly to Hillary Clinton herself and said, "I have damaging videos of Trump and I snorting coke off strippers asses" there is no law that would make that conversation illegal nor is there any law that would bar Clinton from paying him to get the tape.

 

That would be illegal under 52 U.S.C. 30121.  Many legal experts have weighed in on this:
 

Can it be a crime to do opposition research by asking foreigners for information?

Say that, in Summer 2016, a top Hillary Clinton staffer gets a message: “A Miss Universe contestant — Miss Slovakia — says that Donald Trump had sexually harassed her. Would you like to get her story?” The staffer says, “I’d love to,” and indeed gets the information, which he then uses in the campaign. Did the staffer and the Miss Universe contestant just commit a crime? 

If you want to find out the answer, click the link and read the legal analysis.  If you prefer to stay blissfully ignorant, then just keep flapping your gums without reading anything that might challenge your beliefs.

Quote

The hypocrisy from the Left is simply mind boggling.

 

Only to be outdone by the ignorance on the right.  To wit:

1 hour ago, usviphotography said:

Please remind me again what country Christopher Steele is from?

 

From Wiki:

Fusion GPS is a commercial research and strategic intelligence firm based in Washington, D.C. The company conducts open-source investigations and provides research and strategic advice for businesses, law firms and investors, as well as for political inquiries, such as opposition research. The "GPS" initialism is derived from "Global research, Political analysis, Strategic insight".

The nationalities of the employees are not at issue here, as they were providing a service to their employer, not to the campaigns.  By my reading of the law, it could have been a problem if either of the campaigns had directly solicited or enlisted the services of Steele or another foreign national.  But they did not.

By your loony reading of the law, no campaign can use Intel computers or Microsoft software because these companies have foreigners working on their staff.  

Quote

Their candidate paid a foreigner for dirt on their opponent.

 

NO, THEY DIDN'T.  You could have noodled this out for yourself simply by realizing that the FBI has not gone after either of the research firms (that hired Fusion) or any of the campaign staff for their actions.

34 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

All politicians would welcome such info. Difference is that Trump openly admits to it.

A history lesson on Al Gore's campaign would prove you wrong.  But I'm not going to give it to you.  I'm done teaching grade-school lessons today.

10 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

Those with OTT TDS will have marginalized themselves to the point no one pays them the time of day. 

I'm starting to wonder if you might actually be Trump when you say things like "no one pays them the time of day".

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

So you dont agree with the head of the fbi and the attorney general.

 

Or the actual law.  There is a law making this illegal.  Trump has no problem breaking that law.

46 minutes ago, ezzra said:

i just don't see how a socialist with dreams of sharing the wealth could ever succeed to be elected...

 

If people learn how their government works and realize that the president isn't all powerful and can't speak a new market system into existence, a socialist president shouldn't be a big problem any more than a republican president is a bIg problem or a democratic president is a big problem. 

Economic systems can only change in a big way if congress sets up the requisite framework. Presently the USA operates in a midland between true capitalism and true communism.

53 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Trump is right, again.

 

I think you need to explain yourself.  You think it's okay for foreign adversarial governments to influence our elections? You don't see any reason why this might be a bad idea?

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Neither have we seen the resistance unwilling to work for the American people on infrastructure, jobs and fixing loop holes in a disgraced southern border debacle!

Things were pretty calm under the Obama administration.  I wonder what changed?  Oh, that's right.  The Orange Pustulence  has been visited upon us and everything's gone to hell.

1 hour ago, riclag said:

The russian investigation is over nadler!

Try to keep up with the news.  Even Fox News is reporting on all the slime and corruption that needs to be investigated.  I'd say it's about time for YOU to be moving along and stop pretending that everything is about Russia.

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Your  party lost the election and the witch hunt!

Maybe you should check the dictionary and find out what a "witch hunt" actually means.  Because it seems like you don't know.  When investigations turn up actual wrongdoing and dozens of people get indicted, jailed or surrender confessions, it's not a witch hunt.  It's the legal system and congress doing what it's supposed to be doing.

1 hour ago, riclag said:

The WH and the AG are winning.

While you've got that dictionary open, look up "win" also.  What did the White House "win"?  Barr just caved in to the threat of being held in criminal contempt of congress.  He's giving up documents that he previously said he would not (although it looks like congress still wants to go after him).

1 hour ago, riclag said:

If by some stretch Mc gets to sit in front of nadler it will be executive privilege on every question he answers  

If McGahn's testimony is so sensitive, why wasn't executive privilege claimed the first time he testified?  Once testimony is opened up to third parties, executive privilege can't be claimed. Also, just like attorney-client privilege, executive privilege can't be used to cover up criminal wrongdoing.  

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The great thing about the US, is that anyone can become president

 

This is a double-edged sword, because the obverse is also true: The worst thing about the US, is that anyone can become president. Hopefully nobody here needs a "for example" to support this. 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

BTW, the founding fathers included the electoral college to prevent states with large populations deciding the elections.

And thus we get the present situation where candidates spend most of their time campaigning in large, heavily populated swing-states and almost no time in the small states that the EC supposedly "helps".

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They specifically excluded a popular vote for president.

 

There is a bit more to the story. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist 68:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

Hamilton was afraid a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power.  The EC was supposed to act as a check on a mislead/misinformed electorate, and ensure that only a qualified person could assume the presidency.  Electors are supposed to exercise their independent judgement, not simply act as a mailman, mindlessly delivering the will public to the ballot box without further consideration.  Fast-forward to today: the EC has clearly failed its intended purpose of preventing tyrants from coming to power.