The president is a criminal

[pcgeek11]

"I'll be convinced when other people are convinced", said the Yes Man.

It's funny how you spend quite a bit of time here posting your political opinions, but when asked for what would convince you personally that your guy is a criminal piece of shit, suddenly you're opinion-free.



Just wow: I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you went from "I have no opinions" to "I am very opinionated" like a boy racer goes from 0 to 60, but also the implication that any witnesses against Trump will be lying to save their own skins, AND an implication that the Mueller investigation is forcing 'confessions' out of people.

That's just aside from the fact that you're willing to accuse Cohen/Flynn/Mueller of a heck of a lot without requiring any evidence at all, yet for you to be convinced that Trump is up to no good requires a heck of a lot more evidence.

I wish I had any idea how you can actually justify this as a logical and coherent position to yourself. I personally would have thought that the standard "hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil" perspective of conservatives towards Trump's dog whistling behaviour would have served you best in this case, (ie. make no comment about the fact that Cohen, Flynn and other people in Trump's inner circle have been indicted and therefore standards of evidence have already been met about their involvement, and stay out of such topics including Trump's likely criminal activity) as it would also suit your line of "I'd prefer to wait until all the facts come out", but for some reason, just like Trump you can't resist in commenting. I know why Trump is doing it, but unlike Trump AFAIK you have nothing at personal risk to justify your current position.

I do have opinions just like everyone here, and I do voice them. I have stated what will convince me in this very thread. I'm sorry that it doesn't meet your exacting standards. No, let me rephrase that. I don't care what You think.

I have never said that I don't have an opinion about this subject. Witness' lying about Trump? Would you trust Cohen? I know I wouldn't.

Mueller getting forced confessions. No not forced, but why do you think he raided and confiscated everything from Cohen and his office? He made Cohen an offer that he couldn't refuse in my opinion just as they did with Flynn and his son. Think what you want but many in this forum have expressed the exact same thoughts as I on this matter. Squeeze until you get the answers you want.

Trump being in the Presidents seat takes a bit more than it would Bannon, Cohen or Flynn. He has to be impeached first and that is a higher bar on purpose.

 

[pcgeek11]

I do think there will be a lot of evidence beyond Cohen's testimony including Pecker's. But if you allow me to challenge you for a bit based on what is already known, I'd like to see if perhaps mere perspective is enough. First, though, could we establish an evidentiary standard for you? Previously you used "preponderance" which means more likely than not. But that was challenged vs. reasonable doubt. Again, here I'm talking about the standard that you need to inform your beliefs, not that Congress might need.

I'll have to think on this a bit. I'll update later.

 

[VRAMdemon]

The Lunatic in Chief :

"The inner workings of the Mueller investigation are a total mess. They have found no collusion and have gone absolutely nuts. They are screaming and shouting at people, horribly threatening them to come up with the answers they want. They are a disgrace to our Nation and don’t...
....care how many lives the ruin. These are Angry People, including the highly conflicted Bob Mueller, who worked for Obama for 8 years. They won’t even look at all of the bad acts and crimes on the other side. A TOTAL WITCH HUNT LIKE NO OTHER IN AMERICAN HISTORY! "

Sounds like the mole he sent to tunnel into Mueller HQ took a left turn at Albuquerque and ended up back in the White House without knowing it.

He's going extra batshit on Mueller this morning. Something's getting him particularly cranky. I think he's telling Whitaker to go out and find some misconduct and then terminate Mueller.

Which means that we're now due for a series of tweets asking why Whitaker isn't "doing his job." I'm hoping that the nearly impossible has happened - that Whitaker has seen the synopsis of Mueller's evidence and realized just what a criminal and a threat to the country Donald really is.

That would require that Matthew Whitaker care about the welfare and security of the United States of America. The evidence that he does so seems to be rather sparse.

 

[brycejones]

No, because if I felt that way about someone I would not do business with them.

You can't make me answer a question directly! I won't do it.

- Petulant Man Baby

 

[mikeymikec]

Mueller getting forced confessions. No not forced, but why do you think he raided and confiscated everything from Cohen and his office? He made Cohen an offer that he couldn't refuse in my opinion just as they did with Flynn and his son. Think what you want but many in this forum have expressed the exact same thoughts as I on this matter. Squeeze until you get the answers you want.

LOL. Now you're slipping in a Godfather reference and using wording suggesting torture. Seriously dude, try reality sometime.

Why do I think he raided Cohen's office? Gee, let me think. Because he had sufficient evidence to convince a judge of criminal activity going on there. Him flipping the likes of Flynn and Cohen is very likely to have opened new threads of inquiry, and maybe pointed the investigation towards where they can find more evidence of assertions made by the people they've flipped. Having them on the record saying that Trump said this or did that will certainly help in any case against Trump, but it certainly won't seal Trump's fate on their own, in my opinion.

 

[Muse]

Trumpsters knew he was a criminal before they voted for him. They admire him for being good at it all these years.

They do. In one of the debates with Hillary Clinton she noted that he hadn't paid taxes and his reply was "that makes me smart." What's wrong with America that this doesn't sit right with them? Someone has to pay taxes or the country doesn't work. Not the man they go on to elect president. This country is insane.

And we know now that Trump and family criminally shielded income from taxation in building his fortune.

He has continued to refuse to reveal his tax returns, unprecidented for a POTUS.

 

[zinfamous]

I guess we shall see when they roll out the old Mueller Report. As you say if they have three people that are all telling the same story, he very well would be screwed.

See what I mean about Cohen, he recorded conversations with clients. That is so dirty IMO for a lawyer.

He works(ed) with criminals all the time. His #1 client has an extended history of screwing over every single person brought into his circle.

I would say that it's more of a necessary self-preservation habit than it is being shady...which he is.

 

[interchange]

It seriously scares me how casually Trump can overtly and publicly bash the special investigation in the wake of using Presidential power to replace not one but two people running the investigation without immediate accountability. If his fate were decided by the application of law as applied by unbiased observers, he'd be committing legal suicide, but right now it looks more like getting away with murder.

 

[realibrad]

It seriously scares me how casually Trump can overtly and publicly bash the special investigation in the wake of using Presidential power to replace not one but two people running the investigation without immediate accountability. If his fate were decided by the application of law as applied by unbiased observers, he'd be committing legal suicide, but right now it looks more like getting away with murder.

This is the problem of consolidating power in one branch. The president has a lot of power to do things like this. The application of law allows the president to do exactly what he is doing. Republicans USED to be against executive power, but, that all shifted and only care when the other side uses that power.

 

[fskimospy]

This is the problem of consolidating power in one branch. The president has a lot of power to do things like this. The application of law allows the president to do exactly what he is doing. Republicans USED to be against executive power, but, that all shifted and only care when the other side uses that power.

It's the near-inevitable result of our system of government. That's why most countries aren't presidential systems - they inevitably become paralyzed through diffusion of political mandate, at which point the executive grabs power because someone has to run the government.

The impressive thing about the US system is it has lasted as long as it has.

 

[realibrad]

It's the near-inevitable result of our system of government. That's why most countries aren't presidential systems - they inevitably become paralyzed through diffusion of political mandate, at which point the executive grabs power because someone has to run the government.

The impressive thing about the US system is it has lasted as long as it has.

It only becomes inevitable when you expect the government to do so much. What made it work before was that the government had a far more limited role in our lives. Because people now expect so much from the government, when its inactive they feel like they are not getting what they deserve. You can either reduce the role of government, or, remove what is paralyzing it. And, as you said, what paralyzes it is usually the diffused parties that have the power.

The larger the role of government, the more power someone could have if they could take control. This is why the founding fathers wanted to keep the government small and split. That way someone like Trump could not come in and control a large powerful government like a King typically did.

In the short run, large government power can get a lot done. The long run effect is that people who seek power will gravitate toward that power and try to control it for their own means. We give the government power to do good things in the short run, but, we almost never take it back.

 

[fskimospy]

It only becomes inevitable when you expect the government to do so much. What made it work before was that the government had a far more limited role in our lives. Because people now expect so much from the government, when its inactive they feel like they are not getting what they deserve. You can either reduce the role of government, or, remove what is paralyzing it. And, as you said, what paralyzes it is usually the diffused parties that have the power.

The larger the role of government, the more power someone could have if they could take control. This is why the founding fathers wanted to keep the government small and split. That way someone like Trump could not come in and control a large powerful government like a King typically did.

In the short run, large government power can get a lot done. The long run effect is that people who seek power will gravitate toward that power and try to control it for their own means. We give the government power to do good things in the short run, but, we almost never take it back.

No, it has nothing to do with the size of government. The reason the founding fathers made a presidential system is they didn't know any better and fucked it up.

As I already said the reason presidential systems eventually collapse is because legitimacy and sovereignty are split between the legislature and the executive, both of which can claim a popular mandate. In a parliamentary system those are fused into one so if the government no longer has the support of the people to act then they get rid of it and get a new one. In the US, the government's inability to act is the rule rather than the exception and more importantly, there is often no way to resolve the problem within the constitutional framework. You just end up with years and years of deadlock. As history shows us, eventually that deadlock is resolved, usually by force.

The US used to be the glaring exception to the rule that presidential democracies were destined to fail. Now? Not so much. Here's a good interview with the preeminent guy on this issue about why our system is basically fucked:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...al-democracy-juan-linz-thinks-thats-mistaken/

 

[fskimospy]

And here's the paper it is based on.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/levitsky/files/1.1linz.pdf

 

[realibrad]

No, it has nothing to do with the size of government. The reason the founding fathers made a presidential system is they didn't know any better and fucked it up.

As I already said the reason presidential systems eventually collapse is because legitimacy and sovereignty are split between the legislature and the executive, both of which can claim a popular mandate. In a parliamentary system those are fused into one so if the government no longer has the support of the people to act then they get rid of it and get a new one. In the US, the government's inability to act is the rule rather than the exception and more importantly, there is often no way to resolve the problem within the constitutional framework. You just end up with years and years of deadlock. As history shows us, eventually that deadlock is resolved, usually by force.

The US used to be the glaring exception to the rule that presidential democracies were destined to fail. Now? Not so much. Here's a good interview with the preeminent guy on this issue about why our system is basically fucked:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...al-democracy-juan-linz-thinks-thats-mistaken/

You see the issue as the government not being able to act. What I am saying is that the government does not need to be the one to solve the problems. Our system was not set up for a very strong federal government.

When power is consolidated, people want to decide on how that power is used. The larger the power, the more people want to try and control it. When you weaken the tool, you reduce the risk of someone like Trump using it for bad, but, you lose the ability to do something good as well. The founders had this in mind for sure.

Europe having the history of Kings and Queens were accepting of this more or less. In the US, we wanted to break away from that. We wanted smaller governments (states) to decide how to do things on a much smaller scale. The Founders wanted that knowing that it meant it would mean some trade-offs.

What is happening right now, is that we no longer have a party that wants smaller government. We are shifting from a system that was built around an idea that we no longer want, and its caused the system to push back.

 

[fskimospy]

You see the issue as the government not being able to act. What I am saying is that the government does not need to be the one to solve the problems. Our system was not set up for a very strong federal government.

The entire purpose of government is to act to solve problems. That is the only reason it exists. Presidential systems make it so governments frequently cannot act to solve problems. This makes them unstable. Also, federalism is irrelevant here.

When power is consolidated, people want to decide on how that power is used. The larger the power, the more people want to try and control it. When you weaken the tool, you reduce the risk of someone like Trump using it for bad, but, you lose the ability to do something good as well. The founders had this in mind for sure.

Europe having the history of Kings and Queens were accepting of this more or less. In the US, we wanted to break away from that. We wanted smaller governments (states) to decide how to do things on a much smaller scale. The Founders wanted that knowing that it meant it would mean some trade-offs.

None of this has anything to do with the topic as the size of government is irrelevant. Trump doesn’t matter either. The question is the ability of the government to act at all, not the scope of its action. (Almost all presidential systems collapse, the specifics of their powers don’t matter)

What is happening right now, is that we no longer have a party that wants smaller government. We are shifting from a system that was built around an idea that we no longer want, and its caused the system to push back.

No, the problem is that parties used to be ideologically diffuse and undisciplined, meaning individual legislators often broke with their parties. This provided the grease that allowed government to act. It was routine in the past to have major bills passed with significant votes from both parties. Now, that is almost unheard of. Instead we lurch from crisis to crisis because Congress usually can’t even pass basic bills to fund the government without risking a shutdown. Even when a party scores an overwhelming victory they have at most two years to govern. Trump doesn’t matter for this, the system is bad.

Regardless, the dumb way our system was designed is an entirely different problem than the fact that we have a criminal for a president.

 

[realibrad]

The entire purpose of government is to act to solve problems. That is the only reason it exists. Presidential systems make it so governments frequently cannot act to solve problems. This makes them unstable. Also, federalism is irrelevant here.

But not to solve all problems. The reason they exist is to solve problems that otherwise might not get solved, or might not be solved as efficiently. Its not to solve any and all problems, or even most problems.

None of this has anything to do with the topic as the size of government is irrelevant. Trump doesn’t matter either. The question is the ability of the government to act at all, not the scope of its action. (Almost all presidential systems collapse, the specifics of their powers don’t matter)

I disagree. Those failures in large part happened because as those governments slowed and or stopped, people suffered because they were dependent on the government. Venezuela is a great example of this. Chavez came in, took over all parts of the government and its economy. Then, then anything went wrong only the government could solve things. Even when government was the problem, only it had the power to solve issues. The people then demanded the government do more for them. It creates a feedback.

Chavez was fairly popular for most of his reign.

No, the problem is that parties used to be ideologically diffuse and undisciplined, meaning individual legislators often broke with their parties. This provided the grease that allowed government to act. It was routine in the past to have major bills passed with significant votes from both parties. Now, that is almost unheard of. Instead we lurch from crisis to crisis because Congress usually can’t even pass basic bills to fund the government without risking a shutdown. Even when a party scores an overwhelming victory they have at most two years to govern. Trump doesn’t matter for this, the system is bad.

Regardless, the dumb way our system was designed is an entirely different problem than the fact that we have a criminal for a president.

I believe that the incentive for the parties to become stronger was the fact that the system grew stronger. As more and more power was consolidated, it became logical that more and more effort would be directed at controlling that power. We have a country that for a long time has been split pretty evenly and as such we split the forces pulling on that control. In Europe, you do not see 2 party systems, at least, I dont know of any.

 

[pcgeek11]

You can't make me answer a question directly! I won't do it.

- Petulant Man Baby

I did answer you. You just don't understand the answer.

Did you not see the " No" in my answer.

Duh.

Here is the chain of events:


You said:
"If you worked with someone as dishonest as Trump wouldn't you record the conversations?"

I answered:
"No, because if I felt that way about someone I would not do business with them."

 

[JSt0rm]

I did answer you. You just don't understand the answer.

Duh.

pcgeek is playing 54 demensional chess. His answers at 512bit.

 

[pcgeek11]

LOL. Now you're slipping in a Godfather reference and using wording suggesting torture. Seriously dude, try reality sometime.

Why do I think he raided Cohen's office? Gee, let me think. Because he had sufficient evidence to convince a judge of criminal activity going on there. Him flipping the likes of Flynn and Cohen is very likely to have opened new threads of inquiry, and maybe pointed the investigation towards where they can find more evidence of assertions made by the people they've flipped. Having them on the record saying that Trump said this or did that will certainly help in any case against Trump, but it certainly won't seal Trump's fate on their own, in my opinion.

You are delusional. Nowhere did I suggest torture.

 

[JSt0rm]

You are delusional. Nowhere did I suggest torture.

dont say that. Im sure we can dig back in your history and find you advocating torture.

 

[dank69]

But not to solve all problems. The reason they exist is to solve problems that otherwise might not get solved, or might not be solved as efficiently. Its not to solve any and all problems, or even most problems.




I disagree. Those failures in large part happened because as those governments slowed and or stopped, people suffered because they were dependent on the government. Venezuela is a great example of this. Chavez came in, took over all parts of the government and its economy. Then, then anything went wrong only the government could solve things. Even when government was the problem, only it had the power to solve issues. The people then demanded the government do more for them. It creates a feedback.

Chavez was fairly popular for most of his reign.



I believe that the incentive for the parties to become stronger was the fact that the system grew stronger. As more and more power was consolidated, it became logical that more and more effort would be directed at controlling that power. We have a country that for a long time has been split pretty evenly and as such we split the forces pulling on that control. In Europe, you do not see 2 party systems, at least, I dont know of any.

Nobody said government has to solve all problems, dumbass.

 

[pcgeek11]

dont say that. Im sure we can dig back in your history and find you advocating torture.

Context dickhead.

 

[JSt0rm]

Context dickhead.

dudes like i know i advocated torture in the past but this is different. lmao. im ded. lolololol

 

[fskimospy]

But not to solve all problems. The reason they exist is to solve problems that otherwise might not get solved, or might not be solved as efficiently. Its not to solve any and all problems, or even most problems.




I disagree. Those failures in large part happened because as those governments slowed and or stopped, people suffered because they were dependent on the government. Venezuela is a great example of this. Chavez came in, took over all parts of the government and its economy. Then, then anything went wrong only the government could solve things. Even when government was the problem, only it had the power to solve issues. The people then demanded the government do more for them. It creates a feedback.

Chavez was fairly popular for most of his reign.



I believe that the incentive for the parties to become stronger was the fact that the system grew stronger. As more and more power was consolidated, it became logical that more and more effort would be directed at controlling that power. We have a country that for a long time has been split pretty evenly and as such we split the forces pulling on that control. In Europe, you do not see 2 party systems, at least, I dont know of any.

You don’t see two party systems in Europe because they aren’t winner take all SMDs.

You aren’t arguing my point, so there’s no point in continuing. The size and scope of government is irrelevant. If you aren’t willing to discuss this with that as a prerequisite there’s no point.

 

[pcgeek11]

dudes like i know i advocated torture in the past but this is different. lmao. im ded. lolololol

I have supported waterboarding in the past and I still do.

In the context of this thread no.