Trump whistleblower brewing scandal

[The Great Zaganza]

In order to make the Elections secure, Trump needs to first be secured in an underground bunker for the duration....

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Nonsense. I'm just not falling for the "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOW, RIGHT NOW, NOW NOW NOW!" trap.

We get some political power back, then we go after Trump.

Your solution is to lose with style because it's the moral thing to do.

You don't seem to understand. Trump is violating election laws and you are arguing that him violating election laws should go without consequences. If you let him get away with violating election laws what hope is there for winning the election?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

If impeaching Trump hands him a second term there's a solid chance we won't be a in functioning democracy by the the time Marvel Phase 4 is completed and it won't matter. That reality is more important then the narrative.

A second term means at least, bare minimum, one more conservative Trump yes man on the Supreme Court. That happens and it's over. There will be no possible recourse within the system.

What if not moving to impeach gets a whole slew of liberals to not bother voting?

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

What if not moving to impeach gets a whole slew of liberals to not bother voting?

That's of course the other thing that absolutely will happen. Not standing up to Trump when the current Congress was elected to stand up to Trump will depress Democratic turnout.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by uke2se

You don't seem to understand. Trump is violating election laws and you are arguing that him violating election laws should go without consequences. If you let him get away with violating election laws what hope is there for winning the election?

Okay. Start the revolution then. Why are you wasting time with me arguing on the internet?

I can hold the thoughts "Trump is off course going to try and screw the election" and "The election is not a lost cause" in my brain at the same time.

Again you're taking me to task for not having a plan when your plan "Lose because... only options we got."

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Cain

Someone on Twitter wrote: "I'm old enough to remember when a conversation between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch on a tarmac made Republicans scream bloody murder."
...

And the press harped on it for years.

Trump just moves on to the next weekly outrageous thing and the press moves on, not allowing anything to build.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

What if not moving to impeach gets a whole slew of liberals to not bother voting?

Sure we'll also lose that all important Bigfoot, Chupacabra, and Loch Ness Monster vote.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Okay. Start the revolution then. Why are you wasting time with me arguing on the internet?

Oh, ffs...

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I can hold the thoughts "Trump is off course going to try and screw the election" and "The election is not a lost cause" in my brain at the same time.

Again you're taking me to task for not having a plan when your plan "Lose because... only options we got."

I'm taking you to task for not even wanting to use the only Constitutional remedies there are.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

It appears that he's been caught using military foreign aid intended to fight off the Russian invasion of Ukraine as coercion to start a bogus investigation that he could spin into unspeakable evil in his masturbatory tweets and campaign rallies.

Is there evidence of that now?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by uke2se

I'm taking you to task for not even wanting to use the only Constitutional remedies there are.

Constitutional remedies you admit won't actually work that you just want to do for show.

Constitutional remedies which are provably unpopular with potential voters.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Sure we'll also lose that all important Bigfoot, Chupacabra, and Loch Ness Monster vote.

You don't think not standing up to Trump even though they promised to stand up to Trump is going to make a lot of people pissed and depressed?

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Constitutional remedies you admit won't actually work that you just want to do for show.

I admit no such thing. Republicans supported Nixon right up to the end.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Constitutional remedies which are provably unpopular with potential voters.

That's because Democrats aren't selling the need for impeachment and are instead dithering.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by uke2se

I admit no such thing. Republicans supported Nixon right up to the end.

Nixon is not Trump. 2019 is not 1973.

Quote:

That's because Democrats aren't selling the need for impeachment and are instead dithering.

If you have a plan to pull the Democrats collective head out of their collective ass please share it with the class.

So what when impeachment or the Revolution starts the same people who if you threw them all out of a plane would be able to make it all to the ground together are going to magically turn into a well oiled machine of efficiency?

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Nixon is not Trump. 2019 is not 1973.



If you have a plan to pull the Democrats collective head out of their collective ass please share it with the class.

So what when impeachment or the Revolution starts the same people who if you threw them all out of a plane would be able to make it all to the ground together are going to magically turn into a well oiled machine of efficiency?

Let me turn this around. What's your long game? Trump has shown that he intends to cheat in the coming election. Your plan is to do nothing and hope to beat him anyway. Say that fails. What then?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by varwoche

Yeah the honor system worked for a long while, by and large. It even dealt with Nixon. The thing is, I didn't realize it was an honor system. I was naive. I didn't realize that things could so easily be subverted. I thought rule of law and checks+balances would prevail.

Back then there were Republicans with honor and principle. There was Howard Baker, now spinning in his grave, and others. It never occurred to me that virtually an entire political party would subvert democracy.

Were there? I mean they only cared when Nixon lost half his party with the saturday night massacre. That is the thing clear obstruction of justice lost Nixon popularity it isn't for Trump.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by uke2se

Let me turn this around. What's your long game? Trump has shown that he intends to cheat in the coming election. Your plan is to do nothing and hope to beat him anyway. Say that fails. What then?

*Shrugs* Then the revolution can start.

Again in your narrative we're already at that point. You're already at the end of the long game.

What next thing are you waiting on before forming the Resistance?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by uke2se

But you're not really answering my question. You simply heap on with antagonistic language that I haven't reciprocated. I find it staggering that you would argue that nothing should be done about a president that violate election laws and that we should instead try to vote this president out of office. This stance is so riddled with problem that I am unsure where to start.

You are essentially saying that you do not think Democracy is worth fighting for.

Here's something you can do that doesn't involve violent revolution. Go out onto the streets and position yourself in front of your local representation of the federal government - or indeed, travel to Washington DC - and protest. Shout. Scream. Storm the White House grounds.

The thing is that kind of violence would actually help consolidate power and subvert democracy. It would give them a clear threat to justify more extreme actions, that is always useful for building a totalitarian state.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

*Shrugs* Then the revolution can start.

Again in your narrative we're already at that point. You're already at the end of the long game.

What next thing are you waiting on before forming the Resistance?

I'm waiting for the Constitutional remedy, so no, we're not already at that point.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by uke2se

I'm waiting for the Constitutional remedy, so no, we're not already at that point.

And I'm waiting on the electoral one. We just disagree on which one should be sacrificed to increase the chances of the other.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

But to get him to show up they would have to send the sergeant at arms to force him to show up.

More likely there will be a Lewandowski scenario, he'll show up looking all wide-eyed and innocent with his note from Trump. Every time there is a substantive question he'll wave the note and say he's been told that's executive privilege and he can't answer.

Now instead of fighting one subpoena, the Democrats have to fight every issue of E.P. asserted.

I still think the Democrats should do it.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

The thing is that kind of violence would actually help consolidate power and subvert democracy. It would give them a clear threat to justify more extreme actions, that is always useful for building a totalitarian state.

Here are some protesters that are up against a totalitarian state.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by uke2se

You don't seem to understand. Trump is violating election laws and you are arguing that him violating election laws should go without consequences. If you let him get away with violating election laws what hope is there for winning the election?

That isn't want he said. He is arguing for not playing into the hands of tyrants by giving them clear enemies to justify their actions. Doing something that makes his position stronger in the name of doing something isn't all that helpful.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

And I'm waiting on the electoral one. We just disagree on which one should be sacrificed to increase the chances of the other.

No, we disagree on whether US legislators should follow their oath of office or not. You don't think they should. I think they should.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Sure we'll also lose that all important Bigfoot, Chupacabra, and Loch Ness Monster vote.

Yeah that makes sense.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

That isn't want he said. He is arguing for not playing into the hands of tyrants by giving them clear enemies to justify their actions. Doing something that makes his position stronger in the name of doing something isn't all that helpful.

Not doing anything when a tyrant breaks the law plays into his hands. Not doing anything and pin your hopes on an election when the tyrant announces that he intends to cheat is just stupid.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Nixon is not Trump. 2019 is not 1973.

Yea if Nixon had Fox News he would have been president until at least 1976.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by uke2se

No, we disagree on whether US legislators should follow their oath of office or not. You don't think they should. I think they should.

That's naive and you know it. They have no moral duty to launch a political suicide attack doomed to fail.

You're basically arguing that the Dems egos is more important then the country, that it's better to see Trump win then tarnish their image.

Spare me the moral integrity white knighting of politicians for another day.

This is what I mean when I talk about the Dems wanting a scenario where they lose but it isn't their fault more then a scenario where they win.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by uke2se

Here are some protesters that are up against a totalitarian state.

Where are they storming executive buildings?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Yeah that makes sense.

Yeah it does. This idea that there is some demographically viable group of Democrats who hate and fear Trump so much they will not vote because he wasn't impeached is laughable.

Yeah because if you think a sitting President has done something worthy of impeachment that's one thing but voting against him... that's just crazy talk.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

That's naive and you know it. They have no moral duty to launch a political suicide attack doomed to fail.

They have a moral duty to follow the process laid out by the founders. That's what they swear.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

You're basically arguing that the Dems egos is more important then the country, that it's better to see Trump win then tarnish their image.

No, I'm arguing that if you can follow the process, you should. Especially when the process allows you to react to blatant law breaking.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Spare me the moral integrity white knighting of politicians for another day.

This is what I mean when I talk about the Dems wanting a scenario where they lose but it isn't their fault more then a scenario where they win.

Your plan is definitely setting the Democrats up to fail, and hard. It will depress Democratic voter turn-out and there will be no checks on the cheating that we know will happen. Your plan is waiting for the death of Democracy in the US in November 2020 and only then start worrying about doing something.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by uke2se

No, we disagree on whether US legislators should follow their oath of office or not. You don't think they should. I think they should.

I'm all on board with you, but this has been the shrieking of the opposition since this whole thing started.

"We can't impeach him for impeachable offenses, so why try?"

"What else are we supposed to do?"

"Wait until the next election and vote him out!"

"He's ******* with the voting system. There's a good chance that won't happen."

"Well, THEN you should get mad. Not now!"

It's mind boggling to me too. I've never seen an entire political party agree that the best thing to do in the face of someone violating (BLATANTLY, not just violating, ******* BLATANTLY violating) several laws is to do...nothing. Hope enough people show up in the right districts. It might not happen, the Dems might lose the house again. It's completely possible. They can go back to not having the House, the Senate or the Presidency. Then what? No investigative powers, no oversight, no anything.

[JoeMorgue]

Well like I've said a dozen times I hope I'm wrong. If the Dems can get Trump out via impeachment/conviction/indictment/whatever I'll be happy and eat all the crow anyone sees fit to serve me if it matters that much to anyone.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Guess you don't need a whistle blower with these bumbling idiots. Giuliana certainly hasn't kept his mouth shut.

Seattle Times, yesterday: The story behind Biden’s son, Ukraine and Trump’s claims

Quote:

Ukraine’s current prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, was quoted by Bloomberg News in May as saying he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden or his son. Bloomberg also reported that the investigation into Burisma (company Biden worked for) was dormant at the time Biden pressed for Shokhin’s (the prosecutor that was after Burisma) ouster.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Because they also threatened Ukraine to cough up dirt on Trump?

Or why?

Trebuchet said Biden and Trump should withdraw because they're too old. Sanders and Warren are in the same age range, hence my comment.

Do you even read posts before replying? It's really an annoying, repeated habit.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by varwoche

Yeah the honor system worked for a long while, by and large. It even dealt with Nixon. The thing is, I didn't realize it was an honor system. I was naive. I didn't realize that things could so easily be subverted.

Yeah if anything, Trump's shown us how, despite rampant corruption, politicians usually play by the rules. Most people, even crooked, have some sort of honor. Nixon resigned. Trump wouldn't.

Quote:

It never occurred to me that virtually an entire political party would subvert democracy.

It was inevitable. Their kind sees itself as cornered and threatened with extinction, a not entirely unreasonable belief. A wounded beast is the most dangerous kind.

[The Great Zaganza]

I don't think any candidate is too old as long as they have the sense to pick a significantly younger VP who is groomed to take over in four years or even earlier.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by uke2se

You don't seem to understand. Trump is violating election laws and you are arguing that him violating election laws should go without consequences. If you let him get away with violating election laws what hope is there for winning the election?

Joe's problem is that there's nothing the Democrats can do right now that will have results that can be expected to be positive. Impeachment will not result in a conviction because the GOP is up Trump's ass. The 25th amendment is similarily a non-starter. Airing the man's crimes online or in meatspace has little to no effect because the Republicans and their voters are now the party of Trump, and starting an armed insurrection, regardless of the winner, will do more damage than it will repair.

So what's your solution?

Joe's solution to wait to vote the ****** out will work, if the election is won. I don't think the Republicans are really that far gone to ignore the results of the General. The only issue is cheating.

[Shadowdweller]

In the absence of a compelling explanation for the delay, I remain flabbergasted as to why the DNI (and Lewandowski) have not already been hit with contempt of congress.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Maybe, But how much do we really know about the Russian investigation ? It seems to me that while they're not totally in lockstep with Trump on foreign policy they refuse to perform oversight that might expose his actions.

I'm whistling in the dark. But re: Russia, the establishment GOP knows damn well what's happening. So far they're not willing to publicly criticize Trump for blowing off the threat. There may come a time when Trump loses a veto-proof majority when it comes to dealing with Russia or Saudi Arabia. True, he seemingly can just ignore calls for sanctions etc. but I think the cracks may be widening.

Some of these senators and House members also have their own re-elections to think about. Gerrymandering, voter suppression and foreign hacking may not be enough to save them. But I also understand being discouraged. Bigly.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Shadowdweller

In the absence of a compelling explanation for the delay, I remain flabbergasted as to why the DNI (and Lewandowski) have not already been hit with contempt of congress.

Maybe they find the argument that the law only applies to the intelligence activity compelling.

I mean looking at the Wikipedia page, does it apply to what the president did?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inte...Protection_Act