Who will the Democratic nominee be?

[Farmer77]

Whomever the nominee is needs to run with this fact hard and loud

 

Quote

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.), a lead architect of the GOP tax bill, suggested Tuesday the tax cuts may not fully pay for themselves, contradicting a promise Republicans made repeatedly while pushing the law in late 2017.

Pressed about what portion of the tax cuts were fully paid for, Brady said it was “hard to know."

“We will know in year 8, 9 or 10 what revenues it brought in to the government over time. So it’s way too early to tell,” said Brady at the Peterson Foundation’s annual Fiscal Summit in Washington D.C.

The federal government’s deficit typically shrinks during strong economic times, but the deficit is up nearly 40 percent so far this fiscal year, according to the latest Congressional Budget Office report released Friday.

GOP leader concedes tax cuts may not pay for themselves as 2019 deficit grows

[+DieChecker]

3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Whomever the nominee is needs to run with this fact hard and loud

 

GOP leader concedes tax cuts may not pay for themselves as 2019 deficit grows

Humm... The former leader of the Ways and Means? Hard to call him "GOP Leader", except in the broadest of terms.

Who is the Democrat leader of the Ways and Means today? Are they a "Leader"?

I can agree though that the Tax Cuts, and Tax Reform, were not exactly as promised, but then (ACA??) what legislation ever is?

[Farmer77]

Just now, DieChecker said:

Immigration ban? Was blown way out of context. Don't even hear about it now, do we?

LOL No it wasnt blown out of context. Do you know why we dont hear about it now? Because the checks and balances worked and the law that actually went into effect was determined constitutional after challenges forced rewrites

BUT saying publicly you want all muslims banned from entering the US and then lying and saying you didnt actually say that in order to help get a law passed to try and do what you said IS one good example of why people are concerned.

Really though when discussing executive orders it was one of his first that was a huge red flag for me . It was the anti lobbying XO that said only he can grant waivers to former politicians who want to be lobbyists without going through the waiting period.

6 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

The Wall?

Not that he wants a wall. That he bypassed congress to get funds after they told him how much he could spend. You can be a Trumpian , and you can be a constitutionalist, but you can not be both simultaneously.

7 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

The Russians? Trying to get his way by being stupid in his pick of people, and trying to defend himself against unfair media attacks? Understandable, if perhaps technically criminal.

This THIS THIS. Holy hell. His feelings were hurt so it was OK that he broke the law? That is paving the road to tyranny when discussing the most powerful man in the nation. The fact that he personally along with his media machine are constantly working so hard to make this acceptable is EXACTLY why people are worried about tyranny.

This is a horribly slippery slope. His feelings were hurt so youre OK with he and his administration refusing to appear for subpoenas in front of congress. Do you think that tactic is only being used in this one arena? ......no , no its not.

So now because his feelings were hurt you're (generic you) OK with him breaking the law in an attempt to obstruct justice, and you're OK with his administration bypassing the constitution by refusing to comply with subpoenas, you're also OK with them bypassing the constitution in order to get funds, plus theres the nice bonus of your being OK with him using terms to attack the free press that even the soviets themselves stopped using because of its historical connotations.

You tell me why shouldn't we be worried about tyrrany?

9 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I thought he wanted to remove the corruption, not remodel the way government is run.

No POTUS has ever worked this hard to remodel the way the United States government is run. Granted thats not what he ran on but that certainly is what he has done.

 

 

[Farmer77]

22 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Humm... The former leader of the Ways and Means? Hard to call him "GOP Leader", except in the broadest of terms.

He was a leader on the tax cuts because of his position on ways and means.

 

[+DieChecker]

20 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

LOL No it wasnt blown out of context. Do you know why we dont hear about it now? Because the checks and balances worked and the law that actually went into effect was determined constitutional after challenges forced rewrites

BUT saying publicly you want all muslims banned from entering the US and then lying and saying you didnt actually say that in order to help get a law passed to try and do what you said IS one good example of why people are concerned.

Really though when discussing executive orders it was one of his first that was a huge red flag for me . It was the anti lobbying XO that said only he can grant waivers to former politicians who want to be lobbyists without going through the waiting period.

Right. Checks and Balances. It's not like Trump had those liberal Judges thrown out, or enforced his will anyway. Did he? He allowed the courts to say what was what, just as all other Presidents have done.

He did say all Muslims, but that is NOT what the actual ban was about. It was about the 8 nations that OBAMA said were terrorist sponsoring, originating, sites. And even then, there where rules on people to get in, and limits on waiting times, and such. It wasn't like some kind of Permanent Ban on travel.

Quote

Not that he wants a wall. That he bypassed congress to get funds after they told him how much he could spend. You can be a Trumpian , and you can be a constitutionalist, but you can not be both simultaneously.

He did bypass Congress. Legally. Using legislation that Congress CEDED him powers by making law. Congress can do that... Cede powers. It's right there in the Constitution. Lots of Congressional powers have been ceded (effectively) by Congress.

If Congress thinks it is abuse. Let them go fix it. Have they tried to fix it?

Quote

This THIS THIS. Holy hell. His feelings were hurt so it was OK that he broke the law? That is paving the road to tyranny when discussing the most powerful man in the nation. The fact that he personally along with his media machine are constantly working so hard to make this acceptable is EXACTLY why people are worried about tyranny.

This is a horribly slippery slope. His feelings were hurt so youre OK with he and his administration refusing to appear for subpoenas in front of congress. Do you think that tactic is only being used in this one arena? ......no , no its not.

So now because his feelings were hurt you're (generic you) OK with him breaking the law in an attempt to obstruct justice, and you're OK with his administration bypassing the constitution by refusing to comply with subpoenas, you're also OK with them bypassing the constitution in order to get funds, plus theres the nice bonus of your being OK with him using terms to attack the free press that even the soviets themselves stopped using because of its historical connotations.

He broke the law sure... in Ignorance. And... His people didn't let any of his wrongful actions to actually come about... You know, the reason the President has advisers....?

I don't know that his Feelings has anything to do about it. He hired too many of the wrong people, and he WAS being attacked unfairly. Regardless if his feelings were hurt or not, the attacks against him were unfounded. (Except maybe that one about Trump Jr and the Russian lawyer lady, but that again was ignorance, IMHO). If you were being unfairly attacked, you'd have "feelings" about it also. And try to seek redress too probably?

Executive Privilege is there just for this kind of thing. Some opposition member of the other party tried to do a political hit job on the president. Are you saying Nadler is completely un-bias? The dude, even after the full Mueller report was SHOUTING "Collusion is REAL!". He's unhinged.

Quote

You tell me why shouldn't we be worried about tyrrany?

I never said that. I was pointing out Warren aims to be more of a Tyrant then Trump has ever aspired to be.

As the famous Star Wars quote goes... "So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause.". 

Quote

No POTUS has ever worked this hard to remodel the way the United States government is run. Granted thats not what he ran on but that certainly is what he has done.

I'd have to still disagree. What has he tried to remodel? Where has he gone outside the system?

Don't say the Wall, because that is just a political stand. He used the Emergencies Act, and if it is not to be used that way, then Congress can go FIX it. If they don't FIX it then they have no standing to complain about it from.

Edited June 13, 2019 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

He was a leader on the tax cuts because of his position on ways and means.

 

So quick... Whichout using the internet. Who is the leader of Ways and Means today, right now?

[+DieChecker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine

Quote

In the Federal Government of the United States, the nondelegation doctrine is the principle that the Congress of the United States, being vested with "all legislative powers" by Article One, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, cannot delegate that power to anyone else. However, the Supreme Court ruled in J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928)[1] that congressional delegation of legislative authority is an implied power of Congress that is constitutional so long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch: "'In determining what Congress may do in seeking assistance from another branch, the extent and character of that assistance must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the government co-ordination.' So long as Congress 'shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power.'"[2]

So, as long as there is legislation to create the framework, Congress can cede powers to the President. Which is what happened with the Emergency Act Trump used to get Wall Funding.

There is no Constitutional Crisis. There is no bypassing of the Congress. Congress GAVE the president these powers. If they don't like how he used them. They should take them away.

Have they tried? Not that I know of.

Have they even made a single Platform statement about it, or made it any kind of an issue? Nope.

Edited June 13, 2019 by DieChecker

[Farmer77]

Just now, DieChecker said:

Right. Checks and Balances. It's not like Trump had those liberal Judges thrown out, or enforced his will anyway. Did he? He allowed the courts to say what was what, just as all other Presidents have done.

Yeah this argument just doesnt hold water for me. "its not the worse case scenario so it cant possibly be bad" is a damn good way to end up with "Chairman AOC" in a decade.

As far as if he allowed the courts to say what was what has he? HUGE: AG Barr Joins VP Pence, Also Says ‘Nationwide Injunctions’ Are Unconstitutional or is he working really really hard to erode that particular check?

Which of course since they went against him you are for it.

 

4 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

If Congress thinks it is abuse. Let them go fix it. Have they tried to fix it?

Yes the entire congress, including republicans, voted to stop it. Trump vetoed the bipartisan effort.

Trump Issues First Veto After Congress Rejects Border Emergency

7 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I'd have to still disagree. What has he tried to remodel? Where has he gone outside the system?

Don't say the Wall, because that is just a political stand. He used the Emergencies Act, and if it is not to be used that way, then Congress can go FIX it. If they don't FIX it then they have no standing to complain about it from.

Wait are we talking about how hes remaking it or how he is a wannabe tyrant? As for the tyrant part everything they do is always legal. The wall funding being a perfect example. Contrive an "emergency" and take control.

As for how he is remaking it, well we can start  on an unofficial level with the removal and even disdain for etiquette and tradition.  Think about how much less chaos there would be if he had just released his tax return.

Then we have the wall, the constant blatant lies (do not give me the "all politicians lie" line that kind of acceptance of such abnormality only strengthens my argument), the use of temporary appointments, ordering his staff to refuse subpoenas, just today he publicly admitted he would accept foreign help in the 2020 election, hell he seems to have fully destroyed the emoluments clause 22 Foreign Governments Have Patronized Trump Businesses, Some Legal Experts Say That Violates The U.S. Constitution (think about the quality candidates that precedent is gonna bring us ) ,  he doesnt even follow the system as it relates to national security Trump Ordered Officials to Give Jared Kushner a Security Clearance  he just dictates his orders and expects them to be followed. 

 

 

 

[Farmer77]

13 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

So, as long as there is legislation to create the framework, Congress can cede powers to the President. Which is what happened with the Emergency Act Trump used to get Wall Funding.

There is no Constitutional Crisis. There is no bypassing of the Congress. Congress GAVE the president these powers. If they don't like how he used them. They should take them away.

Have they tried? Not that I know of.

Have they even made a single Platform statement about it, or made it any kind of an issue? Nope.

Who the  cares what congress has done? We are supposed to be telling them what to do.

I know you've heard the threats from the left about what theyd do with emergency powers now that Trump has used them for a non emergency.  Two foxes leaving the henhouse door open doesnt mean the door shouldnt be closed.

 

Edited June 13, 2019 by Farmer77

[+DieChecker]

6 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Yeah this argument just doesnt hold water for me. "its not the worse case scenario so it cant possibly be bad" is a damn good way to end up with "Chairman AOC" in a decade.

As far as if he allowed the courts to say what was what has he? HUGE: AG Barr Joins VP Pence, Also Says ‘Nationwide Injunctions’ Are Unconstitutional or is he working really really hard to erode that particular check?

Which of course since they went against him you are for it.

So then you must disagree with a great number of things that Obama did while in Office?

They can say what they want, right? It is up to the Courts to decide what is Constitutional. Congressional Democrat leaders have said a number of things then that you would also disagree with? Maybe claiming Trump should be in handcuffs? Without trial, but just assumption of guilt?

I'm not saying we can just call it good. I'm saying it is coming from both sides hot and heavy. And ALWAYS HAS! This is nothing new.

Quote

Yes the entire congress, including republicans, voted to stop it. Trump vetoed the bipartisan effort.

Trump Issues First Veto After Congress Rejects Border Emergency

Yes... His first Veto. WOW! Tyranny. He's used his first Veto. A legal use of his powers.

If the Congress didn't like the Veto... Get those few extra votes for the 2/3 to override. That's the law, and how things are done. Using the law isn't tyranny. Especially over a couple billion dollars that the Congress wouldn't allocate for Purely Political reasons.

Quote

Wait are we talking about how hes remaking it or how he is a wannabe tyrant? As for the tyrant part everything they do is always legal. The wall funding being a perfect example. Contrive an "emergency" and take control.

I'd say wanting to be a tyrant, and actually enforcing tyranny, are two different things.

No, a tyrant seizes power and then creates there own law. Trump is acting withing Congressional allocated powers.

Sanders wants to reshape the US into a complete Socialist utopia, and I'm ok with him wanting that. It's if he acts to do so that I have an issue with him.

Quote

As for how he is remaking it, well we can start  on an unofficial level with the removal and even disdain for etiquette and tradition.  Think about how much less chaos there would be if he had just released his tax return.

Then we have the wall, the constant blatant lies (do not give me the "all politicians lie" line that kind of acceptance of such abnormality only strengthens my argument), the use of temporary appointments, ordering his staff to refuse subpoenas, just today he publicly admitted he would accept foreign help in the 2020 election, hell he seems to have fully destroyed the emoluments clause 22 Foreign Governments Have Patronized Trump Businesses, Some Legal Experts Say That Violates The U.S. Constitution (think about the quality candidates that precedent is gonna bring us ) ,  he doesnt even follow the system as it relates to national security Trump Ordered Officials to Give Jared Kushner a Security Clearance  he just dictates his orders and expects them to be followed. 

Etiquette and Tradition? Really? That falls back under Douche, but not tyrannical.

Lying, again, is feeble, and not presidential, but not tyrannical. 

Dictating orders isn't tyrannical, unless it is enforced by force, or threats. Did Trump threaten people when ordering Kushner's clearance? 

Trump might profit technically by the wording of the Emollients clause, but can it be shown he did so in return for favor? A better case can be made that Clinton did just that, on NUMEROUS issues, then that Trump has do anything for anyone, based on them staying at his hotels. And... I do know... That you hate Clinton as much as Trump...  If Trump is profiting, let the Congress do something about it. Have they done anything about it really? What is the situation regarding the State based lawsuit? 

 

You've failed to address my original point to if Warren is aiming to be tyrannical? Or is taking control OK if it is "for the greater good"?

[+DieChecker]

18 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Who the  cares what congress has done? We are supposed to be telling them what to do.

I know you've heard the threats from the left about what theyd do with emergency powers now that Trump has used them for a non emergency.  Two foxes leaving the henhouse door open doesnt mean the door shouldnt be closed.

 

I agree. I wrote that I also fear what a uber liberal President might do. Tens of trillions of dollars... The entire Social Security system.... Could be torn apart and re-invented by the Executive.

Which is why I'd like to see Congress fix it.

Do you NOT want to Congress to fix it?

But, as is, it is completely legal what Trump did.

[Farmer77]

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

They can say what they want, right? It is up to the Courts to decide what is Constitutional. Congressional Democrat leaders have said a number of things then that you would also disagree with? Maybe claiming Trump should be in handcuffs? Without trial, but just assumption of guilt?

Ive not heard anyone make that specific claim but yeah I would most definitely disagree with such statements. Such things , like the "lock her up" chant , are sure to only form a circular firing squad for America.

3 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I'm not saying we can just call it good. I'm saying it is coming from both sides hot and heavy. And ALWAYS HAS! This is nothing new.

I half agree with this statement. It has always come from both sides "hot and heavy" for sure. What is happening today however is a massive escalation of such behaviors and is quite new, as is the acceptance if not cheering on of it.

5 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Etiquette and Tradition? Really? That falls back under Douche, but not tyrannical.

Lying, again, is feeble, and not presidential, but not tyrannical. 

Dictating orders isn't tyrannical, unless it is enforced by force, or threats. Did Trump threaten people when ordering Kushner's clearance? 

You're right and every Trumpian is right. If  you choose to take every single one of these issues, place them in a vacuum and then examine them solely on their own, they are all easily justifiable and no cause for concern.

From the 10k foot view however the totality is undeniable. It looks like you guys are unwittingly working really hard to pave the way for Chairman AOC if not Emperor Trump.

8 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Trump might profit technically by the wording of the Emollients clause, but can it be shown he did so in return for favor? A better case can be made that Clinton did just that, on NUMEROUS issues, then that Trump has do anything for anyone, based on them staying at his hotels. And... I do know... That you hate Clinton as much as Trump...  If Trump is profiting, let the Congress do something about it. Have they done anything about it really? What is the situation regarding the State based lawsuit? 

Again back to the foxes in the henhouse analogy. If anything by bringing clinton up you're making the slippery slope argument I think. She was shady but one step ahead of the law, so its OK that Trump is shady and just flips the law the bird.

11 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

You've failed to address my original point to if Warren is aiming to be tyrannical? Or is taking control OK if it is "for the greater good"?

I have to be honest I kind of dismissed it as hyperbole.

I see democratic socialism as no more tyrannical than the increasingly oligarchical system we live under now where the government intentionally passes laws to harm the poor to help the rich. Or vice versa depending on which year it is.

What specifically is she proposing that you would deem tyrannical?

 

[Farmer77]

12 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Do you NOT want to Congress to fix it?

No I absolutely do.

Part of the terror that comes from this administration is they do so much crooked, shocking or just stupid **** that there isnt time for the media to cover it all in depth. I think during a normal news cycle there would be a massive drumbeat for it to be fixed. Today there is simply too much for most folks to focus on the details and I think our representatives on both sides are using that for cover.

 

 

[Farmer77]

4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

What is the situation regarding the State based lawsuit? 

IDK , if i recall I think there were a couple of others too. Ill do some digging!

[Farmer77]

@DieChecker I swear I didnt go looking for this I do hate the use of words like "demolish" or "schooled" or "burn" in news stories. Grow up folks.

 

George Conway and Neal Katyal demolish Trump’s latest effort to claim tyrannical power

Quote

They took issue with Trump’s response to the congression investigation of his finances. In a new court filing this week, Trump’s lawyers submitted an argument claiming that Congress doesn’t have the authority to investigate crimes. They argued that the executive branch — which, of course, is led by Trump — is the only branch that can investigate crimes.

 

 

[Space Commander Travis]

2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Oh come on! Do you really believe that is the only reason Trump is accused of wanting to be a tyrant?

well, what are the other reasons? Perhaps we could consider them one by one

[Farmer77]

27 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

What is the situation regarding the State based lawsuit? 

This seems to be the latest

Congressional Democrats notch win in emoluments suit against Trump

Quote

“In view of the overwhelming evidence pointing to over two hundred years of understanding the scope of the Clause to be broad to achieve its purpose of guarding against even the possibility of ‘corruption and foreign influence’ … the Court is persuaded that adopting plaintiffs’ broad definition of ‘Emolument’ ensures that the Clause fulfills this purpose,” the judge added.

 

[Space Commander Travis]

I've no idea what any of this means. What the heck is an emolument? I thought it was a kind of paint 

[Farmer77]

6 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

well, what are the other reasons? Perhaps we could consider them one by one

Just the usual, having a bad spray tan, horrible combover thingy and of course tiny hands. Cant trust a ****er with tiny hands!

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Ive not heard anyone make that specific claim but yeah I would most definitely disagree with such statements. Such things , like the "lock her up" chant , are sure to only form a circular firing squad for America.

Pelosi said he didn't want to impeach Trump, she wanted him in handcuffs. Meaning she doesn't just want to politically embarrass him, but to actually make him a convicted criminal. Now, I admit that she might be exaggerating, but I seriously doubt it considering she was in meeting trying to convince her people not to press for impeachment right now.

Quote

I half agree with this statement. It has always come from both sides "hot and heavy" for sure. What is happening today however is a massive escalation of such behaviors and is quite new, as is the acceptance if not cheering on of it.

I might just be bias, but I don't see it as being "massive". Seems maybe "overhyped", is a better term to me. Mountain out of molehill kind of thing.

Quote

You're right and every Trumpian is right. If  you choose to take every single one of these issues, place them in a vacuum and then examine them solely on their own, they are all easily justifiable and no cause for concern.

From the 10k foot view however the totality is undeniable. It looks like you guys are unwittingly working really hard to pave the way for Chairman AOC if not Emperor Trump.

That might be so. But according to the law, he's got his right to do most of what he's done. And you are right that he might escalate and take over completely. But then I've heard the same thing from the Far Right kooks when Obama was in office. That he was going to set himself up as King and wasn't going to step down. And they had all kinds of marginal evidences to point out that it was going to happen.

I'll believe Trump is setting himself up as Emperor when I see him cackling that his New Order will last forever. Till then... CT territory.

Quote

Again back to the foxes in the henhouse analogy. If anything by bringing clinton up you're making the slippery slope argument I think. She was shady but one step ahead of the law, so its OK that Trump is shady and just flips the law the bird.

Well, in a way, yes. Clinton won by the rules, and Trump is also using the rules. So, if the rules need fixing.....

Otherwise, no. There is plenty of things I disagree with Trump on. Many things. I also think he was stupid on a great number of issues. And his ham handed approach needs a lot of refining. BUT.... He is getting stuff done that I WANT to get done.

So... Politics as usual... We vote in the weasel most likely to do what we'd like to see done. And we hold our nose and take migraine medicine to get through it.

Quote

I have to be honest I kind of dismissed it as hyperbole.

I see democratic socialism as no more tyrannical than the increasingly oligarchical system we live under now where the government intentionally passes laws to harm the poor to help the rich. Or vice versa depending on which year it is.

What specifically is she proposing that you would deem tyrannical?

Sure. I can see that "You" see it that way. But, does the majority of US citizens see it that way? Should "you" make that decision for them? Or, should you allow everyone to help make those decisions?

What if 50% don't like Warren's Medicare for All plan? What if 25%? What if 5%? What if just the Muslims? What if just the LGBTQ don't like something? Is it not tyrannical to force something that will alter all our lives FUNDAMENTALLY, on even just a token number of people?

What if "only" 5 million people were rounded up and put into camps? What if it was for the "common good"?

Socialism is just tyranny for the common good. But, who determines the Common Good? The leader does of course. As long as the people like the dictator, such as Chavez in Venezuela. then "socialism" is fine. Then when things go bad, all of a sudden they are a tyrannical dictator. I'd rather not get even close to that point.

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

No I absolutely do.

Part of the terror that comes from this administration is they do so much crooked, shocking or just stupid **** that there isnt time for the media to cover it all in depth. I think during a normal news cycle there would be a massive drumbeat for it to be fixed. Today there is simply too much for most folks to focus on the details and I think our representatives on both sides are using that for cover.

 

Well, I agree to a point. But, I believe there's always been a lot going on, and the media was complicit in keeping it quiet. Now that Trump's waged a war on the center-left branches of media, they're not doing that anymore.

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

@DieChecker I swear I didnt go looking for this I do hate the use of words like "demolish" or "schooled" or "burn" in news stories. Grow up folks.

George Conway and Neal Katyal demolish Trump’s latest effort to claim tyrannical power

 

Well, obviously a first year law student can tell you that such isn't the case. Congress has always investigated the Executive. And it is written into the Constitution, I believe.

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

This seems to be the latest

Congressional Democrats notch win in emoluments suit against Trump

 

See, I don't agree with Trump on this. He should have devested himself of Conflicts of Interest when he was elected, if not before. 

He could have run things still, from afar, just like the Clintons did, and most other high level influential politicians. Maybe he was too proud to do so, or maybe he thought it wouldn't matter because the income would be so minuscule compared to his total holdings. Impossible to say.

[Farmer77]

20 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Pelosi said he didn't want to impeach Trump, she wanted him in handcuffs. Meaning she doesn't just want to politically embarrass him, but to actually make him a convicted criminal. Now, I admit that she might be exaggerating, but I seriously doubt it considering she was in meeting trying to convince her people not to press for impeachment right now.

Oh I actually agree with her statement from a strategical point of view, although I do think its bad form for details from a strategy session to be leaked. She didnt say "without trial" though. Her point was that no matter the evidence the sycophantic GOP senate majority wont impeach Trump so going through the impeachment process is simply giving him a pass. 

My personal hope is that the day #46 is sworn in Trump is charged with obstruction. My gut feeling is he and his family will be charged with more than that - the vast majority of which, if not all,  will have nothing to do with politics.

20 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Sure. I can see that "You" see it that way. But, does the majority of US citizens see it that way? Should "you" make that decision for them? Or, should you allow everyone to help make those decisions?

Isnt that what elections are for? Im dead set against Trump poisoning the air and killing thousands of people a year, but, you made that decision for me by voting for him. Trump Administration Casually Admits Coal Plan Will Kill 1,400 Americans a Year

Hell and in this case Trump didnt even win the most votes meaning that almost certainly nothing he does is seen the same by the majority of Americans as by he and his base. Thats just how it works. As for should it work that way? Im becoming very open to discussing it.

20 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

What if 50% don't like Warren's Medicare for All plan? What if 25%? What if 5%? What if just the Muslims? What if just the LGBTQ don't like something? Is it not tyrannical to force something that will alter all our lives FUNDAMENTALLY, on even just a token number of people?

What if "only" 5 million people were rounded up and put into camps? What if it was for the "common good"?

Socialism is just tyranny for the common good. But, who determines the Common Good? The leader does of course. As long as the people like the dictator, such as Chavez in Venezuela. then "socialism" is fine. Then when things go bad, all of a sudden they are a tyrannical dictator. I'd rather not get even close to that point.

What specifically are you referring to that you find tyrannical about her platform? Not the platforms of other famous socialists but hers.

 

Edited June 13, 2019 by Farmer77

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

well, what are the other reasons? Perhaps we could consider them one by one

I've asked and I've done some google searches, and it apparently comes down to ...

1. He's a liar. Apparently being a liar makes you a tyrant. This is in most articles about him being a tyrant.

2. He isn't nice. Tyrants are (apparently) always a bit vulgar and crude.

3. He believes that he didn't work with the Russians. Tyrants work with the Russians.

4. He won the Electoral College, but not the Popular Vote. Therefore tyrant.

5. He used Democrat Reid's nuclear option to put Justices on the Supreme Court. CONSERVATIVE Justices.

6. Using Emergencies Act to fund Wall. Apparently using all the tools in your toolbox is tyrannical. Even if Congress just puts the tool back into the box.

7. He's a sexist and a racist. Tyrants usually are. Even if the examples are just a few, and the exceptions are in the thousands.

8. He tried to BAN all Muslims everywhere. Except he didn't. He tried to ban some people from a handful of nations on a list created by Obama.

9. He uses "authority" based words. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/caveman-politics/201606/is-trump-tyrant-what-his-tweets-say

10. Imposing tariffs on friendly, cooperative ally nations. China is just a helpless old lady. And Mexico just has a few kids that have left the yard. 

11. Canceled the Iran Nuclear Deal on our end. Because those poor Iranians just want nuclear powered hospitals, regardless that Plutonium isn't needed for such.

12. Canceled the Paris Accords on the environment. Because these Accords, which can't be enforced, and don't stop China from continuing to be about 40% of the problem, make people feel good.

13. He represents Corporate America. Because he's rich, and ran a huge business.

14. He represents the Military Industrial Complex. Because hes not openly against it.

I'm assuming there are more, but I'm tired of mocking this subject.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/opinions/trump-is-taking-us-down-the-path-to-tyranny-sachs/index.html

https://www.thenation.com/article/donald-trump-authoritarian-constitutional-crisis/

https://time.com/4261816/trump-ancient-greeks/

It's just 99% political drama if you ask me.