Bill Clinton: ‘Fair chance’ U.S. could ‘completely lose’ its democratic system in coming years

[Jingthing]

Just now, vandeventer said:

So you would prefer Marxism ?

Neither.

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, mikebike said:

A bit rich to complain when you are offered a 50/50 split and co-chair and McCarthy rejected it...

Got a good link for that?

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, vandeventer said:

So you would prefer Marxism ?

Rejecting Fascism is not choosing Marxism.

[heybruce]

19 hours ago, vandeventer said:

To start America is a Republic, and the hole that Biden is digging for America we may never get out of. He knows what he has to do so why doesn't he do it? Party first, America last? Why does he do this?

Yes, America is a Democratic Republic.  What is your point?

 

Biden entered office with America in a hole and recovering from an attempted coup.  Climbing out will take time.

 

Putting party before country is a Republican thing.

[heybruce]

13 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

You do realize the US having cordial and respectful relationships with NK and Russia was a huge success for Trump. It was his art of the deal in practise, keeping everyone safer.

 

 Are you suggesting that NK resuming its frequent missile testing and the US now being in a "proxy" war with nuclear power Russia is a GOOD thing? That Biden did well? 

Right.  Those were "cordial" sanctions imposed on Russia and North Korea, mostly by Congress.  Congress wasn't as gullible about those two countries as Trump.

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, vandeventer said:

Why is your party so scared of Trump? Biden has shown his hand and your party doesn't know where to go from here they lost direction. The only Dem. I ever like was JFK and he was center left and a great man

Why is anyone afraid of giving great power and the nuclear codes to an irrational self-obsessed incompetent who has loyalty to no one but himself?

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Because fascism.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/robert-paxton-trump-fascist-1560652

 

I've Hesitated to Call Donald Trump a Fascist. Until Now | Opinion

 

7 hours ago, vandeventer said:

So you would prefer Marxism ?

Do you concede Trump is a fascist?

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, honcho said:

at least america functioned under trump.. what we have now is marxists pushing biden to destroy america.. the woke are destroying it not trump... bring back trump, best president since regan!!!

Yeah, trump's pandemic response was bleachy keen. 

[kwonitoy]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

Got a good link for that?

You'll probably get all out of shape because it's CNN.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/12/politics/kevin-mccarthy-january-6/index.html

 

https://crooksandliars.com/2022/06/fox-news-msileads-viewers-kevin-mccarthy

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by kwonitoy

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, honcho said:

at least america functioned under trump.. what we have now is marxists pushing biden to destroy america.. the woke are destroying it not trump... bring back trump, best president since regan!!!

Oh yes, Reagan.  The man who's non-response to the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut in 1983 was the true inspiration for 9/11.  However he was telegenic so his fans forgave him.

 

No doubt Trump would have a similar non-response to Putin rolling all over Europe, and Trump's fans would forgive him.

 

BTW:  Biden is not Marxist, regardless of what you hear from your alternative facts news sources.  The economic difficulties at present are the result of supply chain tie-ups, Trump's fondness for tariffs whether they made sense or not, and the painful adjustment from a period of abnormally low interest rates and abnormally high stock market P/E ratios back to something closer to normal.

[SunnyinBangrak]

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

 

No doubt Trump would have a similar non-response to Putin rolling all over Europe, and Trump's fans would forgive him.

 

Evidence suggests otherwise. As most of us are aware, Putin did not invade the Ukraine under Trump, which is strange as you would expect Putin to use his "puppet" to further Russia's interests? Putin invaded the Ukraine under Biden's watch, and shortly after Biden let the world know his woke military was a joke after they catastrophically botched the Afghan withdrawal.

 

Trump "‘I say, “Vladimir, if you do it, we’re hitting Moscow.” I said, “We’re gonna hit Moscow.” And he sort of believed me, like 5%, 10%. That’s all you need.’

https://metro.co.uk/2022/03/05/donald-trump-putin-didnt-invade-ukraine-with-threat-hed-hit-moscow-16220863/

[heybruce]

33 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Evidence suggests otherwise. As most of us are aware, Putin did not invade the Ukraine under Trump, which is strange as you would expect Putin to use his "puppet" to further Russia's interests? Putin invaded the Ukraine under Biden's watch, and shortly after Biden let the world know his woke military was a joke after they catastrophically botched the Afghan withdrawal.

 

Trump "‘I say, “Vladimir, if you do it, we’re hitting Moscow.” I said, “We’re gonna hit Moscow.” And he sort of believed me, like 5%, 10%. That’s all you need.’

https://metro.co.uk/2022/03/05/donald-trump-putin-didnt-invade-ukraine-with-threat-hed-hit-moscow-16220863/

Evidence suggests that with Trump undercutting NATO and other US allies Putin had no incentive to invade Ukraine at the time.  He figured that if Trump were re-elected the US would withdraw from NATO, or at the very least leave it severely weakened, and he could invade then if necessary.

 

Trump has a history of bold talk and little action, especially when it came to military matters.

[SunnyinBangrak]

44 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Evidence suggests that with Trump undercutting NATO and other US allies Putin had no incentive to invade Ukraine at the time.  He figured that if Trump were re-elected the US would withdraw from NATO, or at the very least leave it severely weakened, and he could invade then if necessary.

 

Trump has a history of bold talk and little action, especially when it came to military matters.

You grossly mischaracterize Trump's issues with NATO. His main bugbear was other nations not paying their fair share. He also excoriated Germany for relying on Russian gas which undermined any attempts to have leverage over Russia, for which they openly laughed and mocked him. Of course, as usual, he was later proven 100% correct and they are no longer laughing at him.

 

"At a ceremony at NATO's gleaming new headquarters, Trump reissued his longstanding call for members to pay their fair share, lecturing the expressionless leaders about spending more as they stood listening in awkward silence."

https://www.france24.com/en/20170525-trump-calls-nato-leaders-pay-fair-share

 

Trump has a history of bold talk? He has a history of clearing up problems that seemed insurmountable such as Obama's ISIS crisis, North Korea's nuclear programme, fentanyl and the southern border, operation Warpspeed, the Abraham accords etc etc. Success after success.

[Excel]

1 minute ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

You grossly mischaracterize Trump's issues with NATO. His main bugbear was other nations not paying their fair share. He also excoriated Germany for relying on Russian gas which undermined any attempts to have leverage over Russia, for which they openly laughed and mocked him. Of course, as usual, he was later proven 100% correct and they are no longer laughing at him.

 

"At a ceremony at NATO's gleaming new headquarters, Trump reissued his longstanding call for members to pay their fair share, lecturing the expressionless leaders about spending more as they stood listening in awkward silence."

https://www.france24.com/en/20170525-trump-calls-nato-leaders-pay-fair-share

 

Trump has a history of bold talk? He has a history of clearing up problems that seemed insurmountable such as Obama's ISIS crisis, North Korea's nuclear programme, fentanyl and the southern border, operation Warpspeed, the Abraham accords etc etc. Success after success.

Don't forget that hardly started wall, another of his success stories ???? The only thing Trump was bold at was being Putin's lackey.

[heybruce]

34 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

You grossly mischaracterize Trump's issues with NATO. His main bugbear was other nations not paying their fair share. He also excoriated Germany for relying on Russian gas which undermined any attempts to have leverage over Russia, for which they openly laughed and mocked him. Of course, as usual, he was later proven 100% correct and they are no longer laughing at him.

 

"At a ceremony at NATO's gleaming new headquarters, Trump reissued his longstanding call for members to pay their fair share, lecturing the expressionless leaders about spending more as they stood listening in awkward silence."

https://www.france24.com/en/20170525-trump-calls-nato-leaders-pay-fair-share

 

Trump has a history of bold talk? He has a history of clearing up problems that seemed insurmountable such as Obama's ISIS crisis, North Korea's nuclear programme, fentanyl and the southern border, operation Warpspeed, the Abraham accords etc etc. Success after success.

"Donald Trump was considering pulling out of Nato and cutting the US’s alliance with South Korea if he won the 2020 election, according to an account of his private meetings with top aides."   https://news.yahoo.com/trump-planning-withdraw-us-nato-183526580.html

 

"In the last three years, the Trump administration has fractured the United States’ relationship with its European partners. The most recent manifestation of this was the sudden decision to remove 9,500 U.S. troops from Germany by September, a move that sent shockwaves through NATO.

But this is just one of many instances in which the United States has shown disregard for the wishes and concerns of European partners."   https://www.dw.com/en/donald-trump-on-nato-top-quotes/g-44588734

 

ISIS was in full retreat under Obama and had lost half of it's captured territory by the time Trump took office.  https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-territory-has-isis-lost-2016-10?op=1

 

North Korea's nuclear program was never cleared up.  North Korea conducted both nuclear and missile tests early in Trump's administration, as is typical of North Korea.  What was not typical was Trump rewarding Kim Jong Un with international respectability.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_North_Korean_nuclear_test   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_North_Korean_missile_tests

 

What did Trump do to change the opioid and fentanyl situation in the US?

 

Trump wasted a lot of money on pieces of a useless wall on the Mexican border, but did nothing to resolve the complicated issue of desperate people in Central America and employers eager to hire them, legally or not, in the US.

 

Trump didn't do enough to prevent the spread of Covid in the US, but did throw lots of money at the development of vaccines.  However now that he understands that his base doesn't like vaccines he keeps quiet about it.

 

The Abraham accords will accelerate the marginalization of the Palestinian people in the Middle East.  What history will say about that remains to be seen.

 

Trumps most lasting legacy will be his undermining of the institutions of democracy in the US, which is what this topic is about.

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Trump "‘I say, “Vladimir, if you do it, we’re hitting Moscow.” I said, “We’re gonna hit Moscow.” And he sort of believed me, like 5%, 10%. That’s all you need.’

https://metro.co.uk/2022/03/05/donald-trump-putin-didnt-invade-ukraine-with-threat-hed-hit-moscow-16220863/

What's most impressive about that statement is that when Trump tells us he said something, we can be 100% sure it's true. After all, he has an impecable record in that regard.  No record of it, though.  Maybe because he told Putin that in the private meeting he had  where it was just Putin, Putin's translator, and Trump because Trump dismissed the State Dept.'s translator?

Edited June 18, 2022 by placeholder

[Lacessit]

19 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

AKA: people might vote for the other side due to the madness of the left-wing.

I see, there is no madness on the right wing.

[Lacessit]

18 hours ago, vandeventer said:

This one sided judge and jury comity that calls for testimony without any cross examination, only statements. A true kangaroo court.

 

The last statement is a lie. It is up to the Justice Department and Merrick Garland to decide whether any prosecutions will be forthcoming from the hearings.

[mikeymike100]

17 hours ago, mikebike said:

A bit rich to complain when you are offered a 50/50 split and co-chair and McCarthy rejected it...

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

Got a good link for that?

Apparently what happened McCarthy would have participated but Nancy Pelosi rejected two of McCarthy's picks. Namely Jim Jordan of Ohio and Jim Banks of Indiana. So McCarthy pulled the rest of his members from participating.

"Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts," McCarthy said.

The committee will still have Republican representation from one member: Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, an outspoken critic of former President Donald Trump who was one of Pelosi's eight choices to serve on the committee.

Now its not a court trial, its an investigation. But essentially you have the "prosecution", that would be the Dems and the two Republicans, Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois is one of two Republicans on the committee, the other being Cheney, picked by Pelosi.

Now you have the "defense" .......????

So the 'prosecution' can call any witnesses they want and ask questions, but there is no cross examination.

All the witnesses are under oath as other people have mentioned, however that doesn't mean they tell the whole truth, they only answer the question asked?

So its a 'show trial' or 'kangaroo court' ?

Surely it would have been better for everyone concerned to let McCarthy have his 'picks', then there would have been no question as to the integrity or fairness of the investigation?

 

 

[Lacessit]

32 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Apparently what happened McCarthy would have participated but Nancy Pelosi rejected two of McCarthy's picks. Namely Jim Jordan of Ohio and Jim Banks of Indiana. So McCarthy pulled the rest of his members from participating.

"Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts," McCarthy said.

The committee will still have Republican representation from one member: Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, an outspoken critic of former President Donald Trump who was one of Pelosi's eight choices to serve on the committee.

Now its not a court trial, its an investigation. But essentially you have the "prosecution", that would be the Dems and the two Republicans, Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois is one of two Republicans on the committee, the other being Cheney, picked by Pelosi.

Now you have the "defense" .......????

So the 'prosecution' can call any witnesses they want and ask questions, but there is no cross examination.

All the witnesses are under oath as other people have mentioned, however that doesn't mean they tell the whole truth, they only answer the question asked?

So its a 'show trial' or 'kangaroo court' ?

Surely it would have been better for everyone concerned to let McCarthy have his 'picks', then there would have been no question as to the integrity or fairness of the investigation?

 

 

Jim Jordan and Jim Banks are both Trump allies, why would anyone put them on a committee where they would do their best to obstruct, deflect and deny?

[mikeymike100]

15 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Jim Jordan and Jim Banks are both Trump allies, why would anyone put them on a committee where they would do their best to obstruct, deflect and deny?

By the same token Cheney and Adam Kinzinger and the rest of the committee are the opposite of Trump allies, they despise him and are out to get him?

The point though is  by not having a cross examination of witnesses and not allowing the "defense" to call witnesses or evidence it is seen as not a fair investigation?

[candide]

21 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Jim Jordan and Jim Banks are both Trump allies, why would anyone put them on a committee where they would do their best to obstruct, deflect and deny?

And they were not even hiding it, in particular Jim Jordan.

[mikeymike100]

14 minutes ago, candide said:

And they were not even hiding it, in particular Jim Jordan.

There is a chairman who is supposed to keep order I assume. But lets say you are right and Jim Jordan asked some difficult questions and deflected etc, at least he would get the chance and no one could say it was partisan or unfair?

Right now the "prosecution" is asking their questions, calling their evidence and witnesses and they are not being challenged, because there is nobody there to challenge them?

 

[Jingthing]

44 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

By the same token Cheney and Adam Kinzinger and the rest of the committee are the opposite of Trump allies, they despise him and are out to get him?

The point though is  by not having a cross examination of witnesses and not allowing the "defense" to call witnesses or evidence it is seen as not a fair investigation?

Its not a trial.

[candide]

6 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

There is a chairman who is supposed to keep order I assume. But lets say you are right and Jim Jordan asked some difficult questions and deflected etc, at least he would get the chance and no one could say it was partisan or unfair?

Right now the "prosecution" is asking their questions, calling their evidence and witnesses and they are not being challenged, because there is nobody there to challenge them?

 

I think that the two were put in the list as a bait.. The GOP Senate blocked the first attempt at a bipartisan commission, and I doubt the Republicans really wanted to participate in the House Committee.  They could have proposed other names but they didn't, thinking it would be better for them to criticize the Committee as being partisan. I guess after that they regretted this decision, as it left them without knowing what was happening in the Committee.

 

So structurally, there may be a suspicion of unfairness, however:

- it is at least as much the fault of the GOP as the Dems, 

- there has been no obvious unfair behaviour of the Committee

- about the choice of witnesses, it can be observed that (once again), It's the people more likely to defend Trump who have refused to testify.

 

 

[SunnyinBangrak]

14 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Its not a trial.

It's a hearing. Yet the accused(who has been harassed, investigated for years by all agencies, falsely accused of all sorts of bs, and not allowed to rule as President without the constant scream that he'll be in prison tomorrow) is not allowed a defense. As such it is an embarrassing farce designed to please people who harbor irrational hatred of Donald J. Trump.

No surprise the viewing figures have gone the same way as CNN. 

 

Edit to add, Im not surprised they didn't allow Jim Jordan there, he would have highlighted the absurd farce this latest witch hunt is in 2 minutes,and made Schiff, Pelosi and co a laughing stock just like he did with them in the impeachment fiascos.

Edited June 18, 2022 by SunnyinBangrak

[mikeymike100]

58 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Its not a trial.

Apparently what happened McCarthy would have participated but Nancy Pelosi rejected two of McCarthy's picks. Namely Jim Jordan of Ohio and Jim Banks of Indiana. So McCarthy pulled the rest of his members from participating.

"Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts," McCarthy said.

The committee will still have Republican representation from one member: Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, an outspoken critic of former President Donald Trump who was one of Pelosi's eight choices to serve on the committee.

Now its not a court trial, its an investigation. But essentially you have the "prosecution", that would be the Dems and the two Republicans, Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois is one of two Republicans on the committee, the other being Cheney, picked by Pelosi.

Now you have the "defense" .......????

So the 'prosecution' can call any witnesses they want and ask questions, but there is no cross examination.

All the witnesses are under oath as other people have mentioned, however that doesn't mean they tell the whole truth, they only answer the question asked?

So its a 'show trial' or 'kangaroo court' ?

Surely it would have been better for everyone concerned to let McCarthy have his 'picks', then there would have been no question as to the integrity or fairness of the investigation?

 

If you bothered to read my original post you will see I said "Now its not a court trial,"

[Lacessit]

13 hours ago, honcho said:

 

Functioned under Trump? Highest number of COVID deaths in the world, 1 million now. One of the highest death rates. Trump touted bleach, held spreader rallies, sidelined the best health advisers.

A trade war with China which cost America just as much. A wall that never got built. Dismantled the health system, put SFA in its place.

If you call that functioning, I pity anyone who buys a second hand car from you.

[nauseus]

13 hours ago, kwonitoy said:

You'll probably get all out of shape because it's CNN.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/12/politics/kevin-mccarthy-january-6/index.html

 

https://crooksandliars.com/2022/06/fox-news-msileads-viewers-kevin-mccarthy

 

I'm already out of shape! Looked at links but neither matches what I understood which was that the Republicans wanted to nominate their own people, plus broaden the scope of the hearing. No agreement about this, so Pelosi Inc formed their own committee with 7 Dems and 2 RINOS. The big problem with that is that there will be no cross-examination and witness/testimony selection to give any kind of balance.  

Edited June 18, 2022 by nauseus
'hearing' replaced 'report'

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Jim Jordan and Jim Banks are both Trump allies, why would anyone put them on a committee where they would do their best to obstruct, deflect and deny?

If this is to be a true hearing, rather than an outright  prosecution, for a semblance if balance if course.

 

Pelosi & Co are certainly not Trump fans are they?