Mueller says he could not charge Trump as Congress weighs impeachment

[Becker]

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

The old “It’s obvious to anyone who makes any attempt to stay informed.” argument.

Strong

 

It's not an argument, it's a statement. Do try to keep up.

[mogandave]

 

"4. Blah blah blah...."

 

Is that your best argument?

 

It’s not an argument, it’s a statement.

 

Do try to keep up

[mogandave]

Really?
 
"1. The people that get rich in government or after that get out, I thought that was clear."
 
No, it's not.  In other countries people enter government to get rich.  If that is true in the US, then you should give specific examples.

Really, you can’t think of anyone?

Okay, Dennis Hastert

[mogandave]

Really?
 
"1. The people that get rich in government or after that get out, I thought that was clear."
 
No, it's not.  In other countries people enter government to get rich.  If that is true in the US, then you should give specific examples.
 
"2. I don’t remember saying she was the President. If I did, it was a mistake."
 
This is a topic about the US President.  If AOC is not relevant to the topic, then why did you her up?

Someone implied that only politicians should should have political jobs. The went on spewing idiocy about pilots and whatnot. I used AOC as an example that anyone can be a politician. That said, were she a few years older she’d be running and likely the front-runner.

I view most people that have spent their lives getting elected to the public teat (left or right) as feckless at best. No doubt most of the half on the left are heros to you, yes?

[mogandave]

 

"3. The President is different from what? Trump is not the only President to not have held elected office. If the founders have wanted only politicians the would have said so"

 

The President is different in having so much power held in the hands of one person, unchecked other than constitutional checks given to other branches of government.  Was that not clear?  Do you oppose constitutional checks on power?

 

How many Presidents have not had any government or military experience before taking office? 

 

 

So only politicians are qualified to have power? I think Sundar Pichai has more power than any senator, would he not be qualified to be President? Is being a community organizer the most important prerequisite?

 

Does being a the mayor of a chicken-sh*t little town of 100k people qualify someone more than being CEO?

 

I think Mayor Pete is qualified to be President, but really, what requisite skills has he picked up as mayor? The county pretty much takes care of everything important to most people.

 

The claim was only politicians were qualified to be politicians. Now you’ve checked and want to throw in military experience. Okay, so now only politicians and military are qualified. Jeff Bezos bad, Gomer Pile good.

 

It’s clear to me the President has power and I support constitutional checks.

 

How has Trump violated the constitution?

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

It’s not an argument, it’s a statement.

 

Do try to keep up

"Blah, blah, blah" is a statement that you have no argument.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Really, you can’t think of anyone?

Okay, Dennis Hastert

Really, a Representative who has been out of office since 2007 and who pleaded guilty to a felony charge in 2015 is the best example you can come up with?  That seems to indicate that laws against corruption are working pretty well.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Someone implied that only politicians should should have political jobs. The went on spewing idiocy about pilots and whatnot. I used AOC as an example that anyone can be a politician. That said, were she a few years older she’d be running and likely the front-runner.

I view most people that have spent their lives getting elected to the public teat (left or right) as feckless at best. No doubt most of the half on the left are heros to you, yes?

You'll have to provide that "Someone implied" justification into perspective.  AOC shows that anyone can enter politics, nothing more.

 

Your speculation about her running for President and heros on the left is just that, speculation.  Not very convincing speculation at that.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

So only politicians are qualified to have power? I think Sundar Pichai has more power than any senator, would he not be qualified to be President? Is being a community organizer the most important prerequisite?

 

Does being a the mayor of a chicken-sh*t little town of 100k people qualify someone more than being CEO?

 

I think Mayor Pete is qualified to be President, but really, what requisite skills has he picked up as mayor? The county pretty much takes care of everything important to most people.

 

The claim was only politicians were qualified to be politicians. Now you’ve checked and want to throw in military experience. Okay, so now only politicians and military are qualified. Jeff Bezos bad, Gomer Pile good.

 

It’s clear to me the President has power and I support constitutional checks.

 

How has Trump violated the constitution?

I don't know who Sundar Pichai is and don't think he/she is worth looking up.  Try to stay focused.

 

"Mayor Pete" is also a combat vet, a useful experience for someone who will be Commander in Chief of the US military.  I don't support him because I think he needs more experience, but I do think he is far better qualified to be President than Commander Bone Spur.

 

Once again, you are citing a claim without referencing it.  I suspect you are taking it far out of context.  Try giving a proper reference to the claim you lean so heavily on; it might give your posts some credibility.

[mogandave]

Really, a Representative who has been out of office since 2007 and who pleaded guilty to a felony charge in 2015 is the best example you can come up with?  That seems to indicate that laws against corruption are working pretty well.

I tried to find a Republican, and I said getting rich, not committing crimes.

[mogandave]

"Blah, blah, blah" is a statement that you have no argument.

Against what?

[mogandave]

You'll have to provide that "Someone implied" justification into perspective.  AOC shows that anyone can enter politics, nothing more.

 

Your speculation about her running for President and heros on the left is just that, speculation.  Not very convincing speculation at that.

 

All I was trying to show with AOC was that anyone can enter politics, nothing more, so I guess my comment was effective.

 

I would not expect I could convince you of anything you didn’t already know.

 

[mogandave]

I don't know who Sundar Pichai is and don't think he/she is worth looking up.  Try to stay focused.
 
"Mayor Pete" is also a combat vet, a useful experience for someone who will be Commander in Chief of the US military.  I don't support him because I think he needs more experience, but I do think he is far better qualified to be President than Commander Bone Spur.
 
Once again, you are citing a claim without referencing it.  I suspect you are taking it far out of context.  Try giving a proper reference to the claim you lean so heavily on; it might give your posts some credibility.

What is it I’m supposed to be focused on?

I said I believed Mayor Pete was qualified to be President, I’m not sure why you are pointing out his military service, I think it’s a safe bet most everyone in the country knows about it. You don’t think he’s qualified, whatever.

Yes, Trump’s bone spurs are a big issue, Biden’s asthma and Clinton dodging, not so much...

What claim am I citing, what is out of context and what am I leaning so heavily on? I need a reference to post my opinion?

So tell me again why only politicians are qualified to be President, it might give your posts some credibility.

[heybruce]

29 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I tried to find a Republican, and I said getting rich, not committing crimes.
 

Did Dennis Hastert get rich?  All I found on him is that he was a pervert who committed a banking crime.

[heybruce]

37 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Against what?

 

You posted it, why not tell us what it referred to?

[heybruce]

31 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

All I was trying to show with AOC was that anyone can enter politics, nothing more, so I guess my comment was effective.

 

I would not expect I could convince you of anything you didn’t already know.

 

Was there ever any debate on the fact that anyone can enter politics?

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Someone implied that only politicians should should have political jobs. The went on spewing idiocy about pilots and whatnot. I used AOC as an example that anyone can be a politician. That said, were she a few years older she’d be running and likely the front-runner.

Who said this?  What was the context?  Why are you posting off-topic comments about an unreferenced memory?

5 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

So only politicians are qualified to have power? I think Sundar Pichai has more power than any senator, would he not be qualified to be President? Is being a community organizer the most important prerequisite?

I never posted that, and I don't recall anyone else doing so.

8 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

What is it I’m supposed to be focused on?

I said I believed Mayor Pete was qualified to be President, I’m not sure why you are pointing out his military service, I think it’s a safe bet most everyone in the country knows about it. You don’t think he’s qualified, whatever.

Yes, Trump’s bone spurs are a big issue, Biden’s asthma and Clinton dodging, not so much...

What claim am I citing, what is out of context and what am I leaning so heavily on? I need a reference to post my opinion?

So tell me again why only politicians are qualified to be President, it might give your posts some credibility.

 

Good question; what are you focused on?  Why are you so determined to argue about who can enter politics?  Many people have argued, with good reason, that Trump is unqualified to be President.  You seem to think the fact that AOC was elected to the House is a good argument against that. 

 

"So tell me again why only politicians are qualified to be President, it might give your posts some credibility."

 

I never posted that.  Try replying to what people post.  Your habit of replying to imaginary posts leaves you with zero credibility.

[mogandave]

Good question; what are you focused on?  Why are you so determined to argue about who can enter politics?  Many people have argued, with good reason, that Trump is unqualified to be President.  You seem to think the fact that AOC was elected to the House is a good argument against that. 
 
"So tell me again why only politicians are qualified to be President, it might give your posts some credibility."
 
I never posted that.  Try replying to what people post.  Your habit of replying to imaginary posts leaves you with zero credibility.

So what are the good reasons Trump is unqualified to be President, is it the hair? We hear a lot about the hair. Vanity Fair did a big article on it.

Nancy knows she’s got nothing so she’s as much as conceded there will be no impeachment, so now she’s promising to put Trump in prison when he leaves office in *six years.

*Nancy didn’t say six, I threw that in because that’s how long it will be.

I’m guessing Biden/Harris, I was thinking Harris/Beto, but it looks like Beto is done now

[Scott]

Enough with the baiting, bickering and off-topic nonsense.   Continue and face a suspension.   YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.  

 

[heybruce]

53 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

So what are the good reasons Trump is unqualified to be President, is it the hair? We hear a lot about the hair. Vanity Fair did a big article on it.

Nancy knows she’s got nothing so she’s as much as conceded there will be no impeachment, so now she’s promising to put Trump in prison when he leaves office in *six years.

*Nancy didn’t say six, I threw that in because that’s how long it will be.

I’m guessing Biden/Harris, I was thinking Harris/Beto, but it looks like Beto is done now

You ignored most of my post and asked for reasons why Trump is unqualified to be President.  I take it you are taking a break from responding to imaginary posts.

 

Trump has no history of public service of any kind.  He has no military experience.  He didn't know what the nuclear triad was, and may not know now.  He either doesn't understand or doesn't respect the US Constitution and its checks and balances.  He has no history of being part of a team and compromising to accomplish objectives, he only knows how to be an autocrat.

 

Trump is a business man with a long history of bankruptcies and legal problems who's only real talent is self-promotion.  That does not qualify him to be President.

 

Pelosi knows she has more than enough to impeach Trump.  She also knows the Senate will not convict for political reasons.  So she is looking for evidence of crimes so obvious that even the Senate will have to convict.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, heybruce said:

You took it as an insult?  Are you one of those people who don't know that the US is a democratic republic?

error

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

Good question; what are you focused on?  Why are you so determined to argue about who can enter politics?  Many people have argued, with good reason, that Trump is unqualified to be President.  You seem to think the fact that AOC was elected to the House is a good argument against that. 

 

LOL. No qualifications are required to be president, other than being born an American. Anyone can become one if they get enough electoral college votes.

All those decrying him based on "qualifications" are whistling into the wind. 

Trump epitomises the American Dream, in that he, a game show host, and according to some a poor businessman, became president.

Indeed, the American Dream, in which anyone can become president.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Trump has no history of public service of any kind.  He has no military experience.  He didn't know what the nuclear triad was, and may not know now.  He either doesn't understand or doesn't respect the US Constitution and its checks and balances.  He has no history of being part of a team and compromising to accomplish objectives, he only knows how to be an autocrat.

 

Trump is a business man with a long history of bankruptcies and legal problems who's only real talent is self-promotion.  That does not qualify him to be President.

See my previous post. No one needs to know any of that stuff, which is why he gets advisors to go with being president. 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Pelosi knows she has more than enough to impeach Trump.  She also knows the Senate will not convict for political reasons.  So she is looking for evidence of crimes so obvious that even the Senate will have to convict.

Her and many other Democrat politicians, apparently.

Mueller couldn't find anything sufficient to indict him in 2 years with a large team and millions of dollars to spend. I fail to see what Pelosi et al think they will find in the less than 2 years before the next election, and a possible return of the house to GOP majority. While Mueller had only one job, Pelosi and co are supposed to be running the country as well.

All Trump has to do is stall in the courts and wait till the election.

BTW, Pelosi doesn't only have to accept that the senate would not uphold impeachment at the present time, she must know that some Dem house members will be unwilling to upset their re election chances by being too anti Trump. Only those with large Democrat majorities in their states will openly assail Trump. Those with a knife edge majority, may be unwilling to chance losing their seat.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

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. 

 

 

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".

 

 

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. 

 

Fair enough.

Did you notice that 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. which implies that only a magistrate could become president. I guess they hadn't invented the American Dream back then.

 

Are you saying Trump is a tyrant? LOL

Plenty of real tyrants in the world, and Trump does not come close to them. 

 

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Fair enough.

Did you notice that 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. which implies that only a magistrate could become president. I guess they hadn't invented the American Dream back then.

 

Are you saying Trump is a tyrant? LOL

Plenty of real tyrants in the world, and Trump does not come close to them. 

 

 

Real tyrants like Kim Jong Un, Putin, Mohammed bin Salman al Saud...  You know, the kind of people Trump likes and is friends with.

[mogandave]

You ignored most of my post and asked for reasons why Trump is unqualified to be President.  I take it you are taking a break from responding to imaginary posts.
 
Trump has no history of public service of any kind.  He has no military experience.  He didn't know what the nuclear triad was, and may not know now.  He either doesn't understand or doesn't respect the US Constitution and its checks and balances.  He has no history of being part of a team and compromising to accomplish objectives, he only knows how to be an autocrat.
 
Trump is a business man with a long history of bankruptcies and legal problems who's only real talent is self-promotion.  That does not qualify him to be President.
 
Pelosi knows she has more than enough to impeach Trump.  She also knows the Senate will not convict for political reasons.  So she is looking for evidence of crimes so obvious that even the Senate will have to convict.

I see not having been on the public teat as a benefit, and I don’t care that he didn’t know what the nuclear triad was, I expect he’s up to speed now. I am reasonably happy with his handling of the military and foreign policy, you aren’t, whatever. I was unhappy with the the last administration, and think Trump is better, whatever. I would draw some comparisons, but I’d get the but-but-but and or deflection argument.

The only reason military service has become an issue to the left is because Trump has none. They have cared not up until now.

I missed the Vietnam draft by a year, but I had an older brother and remember the whole family watching the lottery. Trump came from a rich family and got out of it, as did a lot of other people, at least one of whom is running against him now.

I always here the claims of him attempting to circumvent the constitution, but please provide an example.

Anyway, what had his record been against the charges of unconstitutionality in the Supreme Court? What is he like, five for five?

Surly Mueller knew about the Senate when he “recommended” impeachment. Everyone has known this all along. Had Mueller proven Trump to be a Russian operative the senate would vote to impeach. For asking Comey to go easy on Flynn? Not so much.

So it was going to be the first weeks, then the first months, then after the Mueller report, now it’s after his first term and soon it will (hopefully) be after his second term.

As long as we’re hoping, hopefully we get the house back to and get something done.

[rabas]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

Real tyrants like Kim Jong Un, Putin, Mohammed bin Salman al Saud...  You know, the kind of people Trump likes and is friends with.

The kind of people that the world, and US, must deal with, but smiley politicians often avoid for fear of political cost. Clinton and Osama, Obama's red lines and "I can help you more after the election, Mr. Putin".  Though it is a non-partisan problem.

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

I see not having been on the public teat as a benefit, and I don’t care that he didn’t know what the nuclear triad was, I expect he’s up to speed now. I am reasonably happy with his handling of the military and foreign policy, you aren’t, whatever. I was unhappy with the the last administration, and think Trump is better, whatever. I would draw some comparisons, but I’d get the but-but-but and or deflection argument.

The only reason military service has become an issue to the left is because Trump has none. They have cared not up until now.

I missed the Vietnam draft by a year, but I had an older brother and remember the whole family watching the lottery. Trump came from a rich family and got out of it, as did a lot of other people, at least one of whom is running against him now.

I always here the claims of him attempting to circumvent the constitution, but please provide an example.

Anyway, what had his record been against the charges of unconstitutionality in the Supreme Court? What is he like, five for five?

Surly Mueller knew about the Senate when he “recommended” impeachment. Everyone has known this all along. Had Mueller proven Trump to be a Russian operative the senate would vote to impeach. For asking Comey to go easy on Flynn? Not so much.

So it was going to be the first weeks, then the first months, then after the Mueller report, now it’s after his first term and soon it will (hopefully) be after his second term.

As long as we’re hoping, hopefully we get the house back to and get something done.
 

 

"I see not having been on the public teat as a benefit, and I don’t care that he didn’t know what the nuclear triad was, I expect he’s up to speed now."

 

We are discussing the President of the United States, the person with the nuclear codes who has the unchecked power to launch the missiles.  I find it amazing that people don't think that is a big deal and don't have a problem with him learning (or not) on the job.

 

Also, since Trump clearly doesn't like reading or briefings, I have no confidence he is up to speed on the nuclear triad or any of the many other issues a President is supposed to have a handle on.

 

I know you like to paint all people who hate having Trump as President as "the left", but their are a lot of conservatives who also oppose him.  As has been mentioned, Max Boot is one.  George Will is another.  I regard myself as a centrist.  I am also a retired USAF officer and spent half my career on jobs involving delivery systems for nuclear weapons.  Of course I think military experience is important for a President, I have since I reached voting age.  I also think having a grasp of the basics of end-of-civilization weapons is essential.

 

The fact that Trump is refusing congressional oversight on specious grounds is a current example of him actively circumventing the constitution.  As Thaibeachlover has posted, all he is doing is attempting to delay in court until after the election.  That is clearly not respecting constitutional checks and balances.

[heybruce]

33 minutes ago, rabas said:

The kind of people that the world, and US, must deal with, but smiley politicians often avoid for fear of political cost. Clinton and Osama, Obama's red lines and "I can help you more after the election, Mr. Putin".  Though it is a non-partisan problem.

 

Trump smiles a lot, cozies up to evil people, takes the word of Putin over his own intelligence agencies, apparently thinks the horrendous crimes of Kim Jong Un are evidence of strong leadership, and has no problem with Mohammed bin Salman al Saud ordering the murder of a journalist for the Washington Post.