Still waiting for your thoughts on Trumps attack on our rule of law and our constitution Bucky. I can't wait to hear a justification for the actions taken by Trump an Barr recently.Sorry, this is galactically absurd. For starters, it's pretty hard to do worse than socialism, unless you follow it to its logical conclusion and go whole hog Communist. Nothing about socialism is good, efficient, moral, altruistic, desirable or American. Nothing. To suggest otherwise exposes a staggering historical ignorance. Not even the "softer" compromised kind of socialism Bernie claims to want. After all, where do you compromise between food and poison?
View attachment 59531
I would caption this next one... "When You Vote for Socialism, and then You Get Socialism."
View attachment 59532
And this one, "Socialized Medicine... It's Muy Bien!"
View attachment 59534
To be fair, that last one is in Cuba, another progressive paradise.
Why do fat comfortable Americans insist on pretending that the above pictures were never taken? Socialism doesn't work. Ever. It is misery. It is death.
Sorry for derail
Fu*%face Von Clownstick
- Thread starter Nish
- Start date
Bucknut
Carpal tunnel level member
But why start down that road when we know - with certainty- where it ends?
You know the saying... "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have". And, given enough time, it will.
Bucknut
Carpal tunnel level member
What did Barr do that's upset you? There is a 98% unredacted Mueller report available to dems right now. Why haven't they read it?
Not like its unprecedented. Eric Holder was held in contempt in 2012. Seems like he's doing ok.
Burrapeg
Been here a while
- Location
- Puget Sound
I am in no position to say these photos were never taken because as it happens I have seen quite a bit of this first hand. I have traveled in Africa and have also been to parts of Central America. Poverty like this happens when a country is handicapped economically. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the type of government they have. As to socialized medicine, I have a bit of first hand experience with that too, both in Canada and the UK. It works fine for the most part. Sure, it is not a perfect answer. To begin with, doctors and hospitals hate it because, unlike here, there are ceilings on what profit they make. We will never see health care for everyone or any form of socialized medicine here Stateside because the insurance industry here has immense money and power to stop it, and they have Big Pharma and the doctors and hospitals on their side. It is far too big a gravy train for them to ever allow any real change. We have the highest quality medical care in the World here but it is not affordable for an inexcusably large portion of our population. You will change your mind the first time you or your spouse needs a pacemaker or any other serious operation and you start getting the bills afterwards. I have been a widower for over ten years and I am still paying for my late wife's medical bills (and I had insurance - I am paying off the ten percent or so that they did not cover). I had my own brush with the US medical vortex four years ago with a simple gall bladder removal and a 13-minute medivac chopper ride to the mainland for it. The chopper was Nineteen Grand and the 20-minute operation and a couple days in hospital was Sixty Grand. Again I had insurance and it only took me two years that time to pay off the part they did not cover. By way of contrast, a Canadian friend of mine just had extensive and lengthy treatment for very serious prostate cancer, something that here would have been almost into the six digits. He was cured and was finally out of pocket basically his gas money driving back and forth and his motel bills, since he lived over a day's drive from the hospital. Yes, he pays a bit more in taxes than I do here in the US. He gets something for it, too. And all told, I pay a lot more than him if I factor in my insurance premiums.
Last edited:
Bucknut
Carpal tunnel level member
Thank you for a reasoned and candid response. Sorry to hear of your wife, and sorry for the ridiculous bills you have been hit with. We agree on that front... hospital pricing is absurd and infuriating. Certainly insurance is partly to blame, since everything is more expensive when a third party pays for it. But I've always wondered why this doesn't apply to our business. Example: Storm drops tree on house. I can't charge $60,000 just because the homeowner is insured. Why? Competition. So why does this seem not to apply at all in medicine? Price fixing?
Anyway...
But why do you suppose they are "handicapped economically"? I think it has everything to do with their type of government.
Anyway...
But why do you suppose they are "handicapped economically"? I think it has everything to do with their type of government.
Nice deflection Buck but I recall asking you how you felt about Trumps attack on our rule of law and our constitution. Don't be a fucking pussy please.
Bucknut
Carpal tunnel level member
Specifically, how has Trump "attacked" the Constitution? (Other than being a generally cantankerous jackass.). Are you referring to his claim of executive privilege? There are certain aspects of the Mueller report we the public will never (and should never) see. Included would grand jury info, info regarding other ongoing investigations, classified info, etc. Whats the problem? Remember, Mueller will likely testify anyway, so just ask him whatever you want. But prepare to be disappointed again.
- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
"WE" might not read those parts but there are certainly people with security clearances who should have access.
Follow history...when it was lying about a blow job what was expected and accepted? The result of lying about a BJ pales to the consequences of what is at stake here.
Follow history...when it was lying about a blow job what was expected and accepted? The result of lying about a BJ pales to the consequences of what is at stake here.
Burrapeg
Been here a while
- Location
- Puget Sound
Well, a country's particular government can certainly make things better or worse in individual cases, but it has little to do with whether they embrace socialism or not, or the exact type of government. For instance, corruption and abuse of power is a factor in many underdeveloped countries I have visited, including the ones with democratic systems. Any country's ability to compete globally, economically, has to do with things like its raw materials and available exports, levels of education and whether there is a skilled work force of appreciable size. Location and climate are factors too. Geography, available methods of transport, harbours, railways, etc. Very complex combinations of things. Type of government is way down the list, if on it at all. You see the same problems and poverty in both socialist and democratic nations if their other circumstances are such as encourage it. By the same token, you can have successful standards of living and a general lack of severe poverty in countries that have varying degrees of either form of government. The standard of living in Canada and the UK, for instance is not materially different now than here Stateside, despite having much more of a realistic attitude about programs the average American would shun as Socialism. The United States is not a highly educated country by global standards. Our level of average literacy is something like 39th now, well below even some Third World countries. Few Americans speak a second language fluently, if at all. We are a population easily influenced by advertising and by charismatic figures, movie stars, etc. As a nation, we are far more interested in the next football scores and what the Kardashian sisters are up to, than with the minutiae of World affairs. And this is how we end up with a Trump in the White House. Even if he manages to get re-elected, I can tell you what the final judgement of history will be on him, because relatively intelligent people are the ones who ultimately write down history. He will go down as the most controversial, most selfish and corrupt, and just overall worst, president the country has ever had. He has fostered a climate of division and bigotry not seen since the days of the Civil War. He is crude, politically naive, and his ability to govern properly is hopelessly foiled by his own insecurity and out of control ego. He is downright childish. He is vindictive. He lies habitually. He is completely unsuited for the dignity of the office. All this will be remembered of him in the history books, and by way of proof, this basic assessment is already the judgement of most of the rest of the World.
There is that pesky thing known as article 1, and the powers bestowed upon Congress under the constitution. Trump is trying to destroy this foundational element of our government.
There is also the pesky fact that there is very clear and credible evidence in the Mueller report that our president obstructed justice many times. The charade that this report somehow exonerates Trump is possible the greatest con job/coverup ever pull on the American people. Men don't coverup reports that fully exonerate them, do they? Nope!
We won't talk about the felonious hush money payoff scheme that Cohen is sitting in prison for. We have our prez on tape talking of this scheme. We have the fucking checks for gawds sakes. He finally admitted to paying these woman off. He sits Individual #1 in Cohen indictment, and the fact that Cohen is in jail makes this scheme a crime. If Trump were not president he would be sharing a cell with Cohen as we speak.
We have Trump breaking a very clear and unambiguous tax law by refusing to hand over his taxes.
So yea, I am very curious to hear your justification for supporting and defending a man who has clearly broken laws and abused his powers while in office , and is obviously utterly unfit for the office he holds? Feel free to answer each of these examples.
southsoundtree
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Olympia, WA
He's pulling for the common man, and grabb...
Bucknut
Carpal tunnel level member
1. Sparring with Congress is hardly the same as trying to destroy Article 1. In fact, a president can only attack the Constitution as far as Congress and the courts will let him thanks to separation of powers. Each branch fights to maximize its power. God knows the House is doing so as we speak. Let them fight-it will all work out.
2. There was absolutely NOT clear or sufficiently credible evidence to charge Trump with obstruction. This is why...drumroll... he was not charged with obstruction. 2.5 years, $35 million, and a handpicked team of respected prosecutors (many of whom are Democrats) could not find sufficient evidence to charge him. What on earth makes you think you know better than them? If Trump is claiming exoneration it’s because he’s a moron and doesn’t know better. But a prosecutor’s job is not to exonerate, it is to prosecute. And they couldn’t.
I notice we’re not mentioning Russia collusion very much these days, are we? Mueller slammed the door pretty hard on that one. So it’s worth asking, “How does one obstruct justice to cover up a crime that he absolutely did not commit?” I understand that many prosecutors would still be willing to charge him with obstruction, but I don’t think it would succeed because he clearly lacked criminal intent and intent is key in achieving conviction. You cannot intend to cover up a crime which you did not commit.
3. I won’t waste anyone’s time trying to defend Trump’s behavior in his personal life. He is an adulterous buffoon, not one to be admired in that respect. The only potential illegality in the payoff scheme is that the funds may or may not have come from his campaign account. If they did it is probably a violation of election law. If that’s the case he may well be indicted after he leaves office.
4. I am unaware of any law which requires a president to disclose his personal finances (taxes) before or after taking office. The fact that many other candidates have done so is great, but does not carry the same weight as a law that would make Trump do it. Voters considered this issue in 2016 and elected him anyway. You may be making the case for an Emoluments Clause violation? Certainly the nation has a great interest in ensuring that the president does not have conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that would align him or make him beholden to malevolent foreign powers. I can only assume that Trump has undergone the most stringent of background checks by multiple federal agencies and that if there were true conflicts of an Emoluments type they would be much more widely known and acted upon.
Bottom line – Trump is out of the woods legally. Any further proceedings against him while in office will be brought by Congress and will be political -not criminal- in nature.
Exit question: if evidence of obstruction is so crystal clear and convincing, why hasn’t the House started impeachment proceedings yet?
- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
YOu're conveniently following the tribal path. If the complete sentence is used, not the redacted, convenient one, you'll see that its there.
Mueller wrote that there isn't enough given the DOJ line that the prez can't be held to task. Not that the evidence isn't there.
#4...what?! Its a Law that's been on the books since about '24 or so.
Isn't there an oft-used line that if you're innocent then you shouldn't have a problem facing an investigation. Why all of the blockage and refusal to cooperate...if there's nothing to hide?
When the day comes that orange suits and bracelets are the uniform of the day I'll be curious to hear what you think. See you at the edge of the woods
Oh...stop with the cost of the investigation...it's been paid for by convicted players. The ones in, or on their way, to jail.
Stay focused, Buck..answer the questions, don't just make a stink and slink away.
Mueller wrote that there isn't enough given the DOJ line that the prez can't be held to task. Not that the evidence isn't there.
#4...what?! Its a Law that's been on the books since about '24 or so.
Isn't there an oft-used line that if you're innocent then you shouldn't have a problem facing an investigation. Why all of the blockage and refusal to cooperate...if there's nothing to hide?
When the day comes that orange suits and bracelets are the uniform of the day I'll be curious to hear what you think. See you at the edge of the woods
Oh...stop with the cost of the investigation...it's been paid for by convicted players. The ones in, or on their way, to jail.
Stay focused, Buck..answer the questions, don't just make a stink and slink away.
Burrapeg
Been here a while
- Location
- Puget Sound
Tom is right, Buck; Mueller knew he could not indict a sitting president. But had Trump been a private citizen, like the rest of his stooges who were indicted, it would have been a different story. As to the House not moving to impeach, quite a few members would love to do just that. But senior Democrats and House leadership know that this could backfire very easily just prior to an election year and galvanize his base further. I think they are simply expecting that he will be defeated next year, essentially hanging himself with his own instability, childish behavior, and blatant disregard for our Democratic norms. They are expecting that the country cannot possibly be stupid enough to repeat its mistake in 2016, given what everyone knows about the man now. Now, Trump loves to call the Mueller investigation a witch hunt, but as someone already said, it indeed did find quite a few witches. All of whom were working on behalf of a head witch who is happy to toss them under the bus at the end of the day to shield himself.
Bucknut
Carpal tunnel level member
Suppose you’re right. What would he have been indicted on? Not the Collusion Illusion. Because there was none. Zip. Zero. Mueller was unequivocal on that.
So he’d be indicted for obstructing an investigation of a crime he absolutely did not commit? Hey, anything’s possible but I don’t think that dog’s gonna hunt. How would he form the required intent to obstruct when he knew he had nothing to hide with regard to collusion?
- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
And...how do you respond to your claims earlier about his popularity?
As the indictments and subpoenas are served and executed it will be a curious time. The current faithful seem to have a way of spinning and following. Deflecting and ignoring. Blaming Obama Hillary and taking no responsibility.
How do the jail sentences and fines sit with you?
Take your choice
I'll make a prediction...these facts will be called 'fake news' LOL
As the indictments and subpoenas are served and executed it will be a curious time. The current faithful seem to have a way of spinning and following. Deflecting and ignoring. Blaming Obama Hillary and taking no responsibility.
How do the jail sentences and fines sit with you?
Take your choice
I'll make a prediction...these facts will be called 'fake news' LOL
Bucknut
Carpal tunnel level member
Not my claims. Gallup and Rasmussen’s claims. He’s currently polling higher than he ever has. And higher than Obama and Reagan at the same time in their presidencies. Maybe utterly meaningless. But still interesting.
In response to your link:
Are Republicans More Corrupt Than Democrats? - The Meme Policeman
This meme paints the Republicans as corrupt, while the Democrats are shown as wholesome. This portrayal is dishonest and relies on cherry-picked statistics.
memepoliceman.com
Memes from the dailykos don’t even reach the level of fake news.
Burrapeg
Been here a while
- Location
- Puget Sound
You just said it yourself,Buck. If he is innocent, why did he obstruct at all? Why instruct others to, on his behalf? If he had nothing to hide, it was to his benefit to let the investigation play out. This is the elephant in the room for you Trumpsters. He clearly is not innocent. Mueller never said there was no collusion; he said he could not establish any with a legal certainty that would hold up. There is a huge difference. No murder was ever pinned directly on Al Capone either. Same thing with Trump's taxes. There is only one valid reason for him to fight tooth and nail against their release. If there is nothing in there embarrassing or incriminating, why would he object to their release? By fighting this, he is taking a risk with his popularity and integrity, even within his own party, so he must have strong reasons. This is a no-brainer - there is obviously much in them he does not want us to see, serious stuff. Check out Forbes assessment of Trump, even back as early as 1990. See what the experts think of his supposed business prowess. This guy is not presidential material, not even close. If he manages to get re-ekected, it will be a very sad comment on how low this country has sunk.
New threads New posts
-
test
-
Free CEUs: February 05 & March 05 - 'Urban Forestry Today' Webcasts @ Noon (Eastern)- Started by UFT
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
