Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Lord Liaden]

Nixon never admitted he did anything wrong, nor expressed regret or remorse. That's not a requirement for a presidential pardon. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-presidential-pardons/2018/06/06/18447f84-69ba-11e8-bf8c-f9ed2e672adf_story.html

 

I absolutely expect Donald Trump to accept a pardon, because it means he escapes consequences for his actions as President, and escaping consequences has been a theme of his whole life. He'll simply deny he ever did anything improper, but state that he was avoiding "fake, unfair" prosecution.

[archer]

There's one thing I can't ignore even if I wanted to.

 

The congressional oversight committee, by law, is supposed to have unlimited access to the president's tax returns so they can ensure he isn't compromised in some way...such as owing hundreds of millions of dollars to a hostile foreign power as Trump apparently does.

 

When the oversight committee asked the head of the IRS for Trump's tax returns, Trump told him to ignore the law and not give them his tax returns.

 

Note that if there are no serious problems found, the committee isn't allowed to publicize the tax returns or even tell the contents of the tax returns to congressmen who aren't on that specific committee. Access is solely to make sure that one committee can do its job and make sure the president isn't liable to blackmail or in the employ of a foreign power.

 

Rather than having a confrontation such as having the head of the IRS arrested, the committee has decided to go through the courts to subpoena the tax returns...and has been in court for 2+ years while Trump has had free reign to compromise our government.

 

That cannot happen again. It is far, far too dangerous for the country. And considering that both Trump himself and his kids, who are probably equally compromised, are threatening to run in 2024 and beyond, the only thing we can rationally do is prosecute Trump. And publicize the evidence in his tax returns proving that the law is correct and that there should be enough congressional oversight of the president to ensure that he isn't the tool of a foreign government. 

 

I'm not arguing here that the tax returns of a presidential candidate should be released to the public, though I think that's a good idea. I'm arguing that there's a reason why we, by law, have congressional oversight. And the prosecution of Trump will additionally show to the public that the congressional committee was in the wrong by not having government officials arrested immediately and prosecuted for obstruction and instead took a less confrontational approach after the obstruction happened.

 

I understand why Biden would rather work on enacting his policies rather than have the public invested in (and divided over) the trials of Trump. But frankly, the country will get more long-term benefit from the prosecution of Trump ending the idea of an unlimited imperial presidency than it will get out of any legislation that would get through the Senate with McConnell in control and the Republicans able to filibuster everything regardless.

[archer]

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

I take a different perspective on the issue of a pardon. What Donald Trump is being prosecuted for in New York has nothing to do with his activities as President. In his election campaign and his capacity as President, Trump used the rhetoric of hatred and fear to deliberately exacerbate divisions within America. He appointed his cronies to positions of authority, lied to the American people on numerous occasions, subverted the law and the Constitution, and abused his power. He did all this for personal gain and to pave the way for an authoritarian regime.

 

And Trump still nearly succeeded in hoodwinking a majority of Americans into voting him back in. He failed due to his own incompetence and to the timing of a global health crisis. But his approach still netted him great success, which another may be tempted to emulate in future, maybe someone smarter and more capable than Donald Trump. To dissuade the next would-be dictator there needs to be a clear example of severe consequences for trying and failing. And maybe bringing the facts of his actions to light during prosecution might sway at least some of the people under his spell.

 

Unfortunately, the forum only allows me to upvote this comment once...when it clearly deserves more upvotes from me.

 

 

[Matt the Bruins]

Frankly, based solely on deliberate coronavirus misinformation and the number of unnecessary American deaths it contributed to, I'd be more than all right with treason charges and Rosenberg-style consequences.

[Lord Liaden]

"Treason" by American constitutional definition requires providing aid or comfort to an enemy of the United States. That particular charge can't apply to Trump based on his response to coronavirus, or any other circumstance for which evidence is known. But I'm sure there's a lot of other things he could be charged with.

[TrickstaPriest]

Yeah, I'm not inclined to misuse the term 'treason'.  But I will point out that the biggest Liberal scandal was Bhengazi for a while.  4 dead Americans.

 

I feel like it would be worthwhile to put together a list of how many of those-level incidents Trump has been responsible for.

 

Anyone remember the tweet that almost started a war with North Korea?

[DShomshak]

7 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

And Trump still nearly succeeded in hoodwinking a majority of Americans into voting him back in. He failed due to his own incompetence and to the timing of a global health crisis. But his approach still netted him great success, which another may be tempted to emulate in future, maybe someone smarter and more capable than Donald Trump. To dissuade the next would-be dictator there needs to be a clear example of severe consequences for trying and failing. And maybe bringing the facts of his actions to light during prosecution might sway at least some of the people under his spell.

IIRC from The Dictators' Playbook series, this happened with both Idi Amin and Manuel Noriega. Each was preceded by a president who ineptly attempted dictatorship, but weakened the organs of law and government enough to let the more audacious and ruthless man succeed.

 

Trump must be investigated and prosecuted as far as facts and law allow.

 

Dean Shomshak

[archer]

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

"Treason" by American constitutional definition requires providing aid or comfort to an enemy of the United States. That particular charge can't apply to Trump based on his response to coronavirus, or any other circumstance for which evidence is known. But I'm sure there's a lot of other things he could be charged with.

 

Trump himself claimed that we were at war with the virus and characterized himself as a wartime president.

 

And I think it would be simple to demonstrate that he has given aid and comfort to the enemy.

 

I don't think anyone in either party would allow the Justice Department bring charges against Trump on the basis of treason by colluding with the virus. But I think a dispassionate jury would convict him if presented the case.

[Lord Liaden]

See, now we're getting into expanding the legal definition of an "enemy" to something without sapience, something usually considered an "act of God." That would be comparable to defining a man-eating lion as a murderer, or a hurricane as committing an act of war when it makes landfall.

 

If a court would even consider hearing such a case (highly unlikely iMHO), the philosophical arguments would take years, if not decades, before it could even be allowed to proceed to trial, if it ever would be. It's much more practical to charge Donald Trump with something the law recognizes as a crime now. Reckless endangerment strikes me as one charge that might be applied to Trump's handling of COVID.

 

EDIT: I want to also point out that your argument for going ahead on a treason charge hinges on taking Donald Trump's own words as having some legal relevance to reality. Think about that.

[Old Man]

12 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

See, now we're getting into expanding the legal definition of an "enemy" to something without sapience, something usually considered an "act of God." That would be comparable to defining a man-eating lion as a murderer, or a hurricane as committing an act of war when it makes landfall.

 

I dimly recall having been at war with "terror" for 20 years and "drugs" for 40.  ;)

 

Your point is taken.  Of greater relevance, perhaps, might be openly siding with declared enemies of the United States, such as Nazi Germany or the Confederacy.

[tkdguy]

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

"Treason" by American constitutional definition requires providing aid or comfort to an enemy of the United States. That particular charge can't apply to Trump based on his response to coronavirus, or any other circumstance for which evidence is known. But I'm sure there's a lot of other things he could be charged with.

 

You can make a good case for criminal negligence and dereliction of duty.

[archer]

Maybe it's too early to seriously talk about the Biden agenda but obviously healthcare is going to be in there somewhere.

 

Bernie pushes for fully nationalized healthcare. Most progressives are pushing for "Medicare for All" while not being on Medicare themselves and realizing just how much Medicare sucks. Given the choice between only those two options, I'd go for nationalized healthcare every time.

 

However, I ran across this interesting article about how the European countries which have private insurance manage to avoid a lot of the problems which the US has with its system for private insurance.

 

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why-europeans-don-t-get-huge-medical-bills?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

 

[csyphrett]

There is a possibility that Trump will be tried in New York for crimes there. Jean Carrol's lawsuit was going ahead but I don't know if that has stalled, or Trump paid her off. I do know the DOJ tried to step in and was told to STFU and GTFO by the judge in that case.

 

Whether Trump gets chased in the court or not, I would love for something to happen to Bill Barr and Mitch McConnel. I loathed them more than I loath Tom TIllis, a man who should get what Vigo got.

CES

[Lord Liaden]

9 minutes ago, archer said:

Maybe it's too early to seriously talk about the Biden agenda but obviously healthcare is going to be in there somewhere.

 

Bernie pushes for fully nationalized healthcare. Most progressives are pushing for "Medicare for All" while not being on Medicare themselves and realizing just how much Medicare sucks. Given the choice between only those two options, I'd go for nationalize healthcare every time.

 

However, I ran across this interesting article about how the European countries which have private insurance manage to avoid a lot of the problems which the US has with its system for private insurance.

 

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why-europeans-don-t-get-huge-medical-bills?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

 

 

That does sound like a practical, workable approach. Unfortunately it includes the words, "government regulation." You know that's going to prompt knee-jerk negation by many conservatives, not to mention aggressive opposing lobbying and advertising by the insurance industry.

 

In any case, the Biden administration can't make any substantive progress on health care unless and until Democrats gain control of the Senate. Otherwise the best he can do is end government legal challenges to the ACA, and restore the coverage stripped from it by Trump's executive order.

[archer]

25 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

That does sound like a practical, workable approach. Unfortunately it includes the words, "government regulation." You know that's going to prompt knee-jerk negation by many conservatives, not to mention aggressive opposing lobbying and advertising by the insurance industry.

 

 

Well sure. But every change, whether good or bad, is going to prompt knee-jerk responses and aggressive lobbying by the insurance industry.

 

The goal is to try to come up with the best system which could possibly have a chance to be enacted, not to avoid the worst of the criticism.   

 

Regulating and standardizing the insurance industry would be much less expensive than either nationalizing healthcare or Medicare for All, which is not an insignificant consideration in an era when government tax revenue is plunging and government expenses are already skyrocketing. Rolling out a plan which would fix a lot of the problems and which could be done inexpensively with the existing bureaucracy is something which could be sold to the public as a fantastic leap forward.

 

And if they successfully address that facet of the problem, it'll buy the administration credibility to push to solve the rest of the problem (as well as other non-healthcare problems). 

[Ragitsu]

Education has to be addressed.

[archer]

America’s Next Authoritarian Will Be Much More Competent

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/trump-proved-authoritarians-can-get-elected-america/617023/

 

...The situation is a perfect setup, in other words, for a talented politician to run on Trumpism in 2024. A person without the eager Twitter fingers and greedy hotel chains, someone with a penchant for governing rather than golf. An individual who does not irritate everyone who doesn’t already like him, and someone whose wife looks at him adoringly instead of slapping his hand away too many times in public. Someone who isn’t on tape boasting about assaulting women, and who says the right things about military veterans. Someone who can send appropriate condolences about senators who die, instead of angering their state’s voters, as Trump did, perhaps to his detriment, in Arizona. A norm-subverting strongman who can create a durable majority and keep his coalition together to win more elections.  

 

Make no mistake: The attempt to harness Trumpism—without Trump, but with calculated, refined, and smarter political talent—is coming. And it won’t be easy to make the next Trumpist a one-term president. He will not be so clumsy or vulnerable....

[Pariah]

7 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

"Treason" by American constitutional definition requires providing aid or comfort to an enemy of the United States. That particular charge can't apply to Trump based on his response to coronavirus, or any other circumstance for which evidence is known. But I'm sure there's a lot of other things he could be charged with.

 

Russian bounties on American soldiers?

[Ragitsu]

Someone close to me asserted that Trump won. It really sucks when that ignorance/tribalism sits near to home.

[Pariah]

7 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

Education has to be addressed.

 

Education is just a way for liberal pinko-Commie teachers to indoctrinate unsuspecting young minds into surrendering their God-given freedoms and turn America into a Socialist state like Venezuela.

 

And I should know. I'm a teacher!  

[Grailknight]

2 hours ago, Pariah said:

 

Russian bounties on American soldiers?

 

The abandonment of the Kurds is probably a better bet.

[TrickstaPriest]

28 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

 

The abandonment of the Kurds is probably a better bet.

 

Was going to mention them earlier...

[Hermit]

19 hours ago, Pariah said:

Op-ed piece from NBC:

 

Why Biden should pardon Trump — and we Democrats should want him to

 

Some logical points, but I think many Americans are sick of the two justice system... and practical or not, states still being able to make moves or not, there is something in the national character that would take another shot of cynicism like poison in a glass if we just keep admitting that those in power never have to play by the rules like those who don't.

 

I'm not for the pardon. But yes it will cause backlash

[Starlord]

Trump is now known as 'White House Karen' on Twitter

[Cancer]

Frankly, I am waiting to see just how much of the Führerbunker scenario plays out in the coming weeks.