Total posts: 4,222
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, it's too bad Congress abused its power and refused to go to the SCOTUS.
lol congress abused it's power by doing the thing the constitution explicitly says it, and only it, can do? What are you even talking about?
Republicans are arguing that Trump cannot be charged with a crime, because of a justice department memo. But they can't impeach because he hasn't been charged with a crime. Basically, they are arguing that a president cannot be punished in any way by anyone.
That is stupid all on it's own. The real kicker is that alot of these same people voted to impeach Bill clinton for lying about a blow job. But now they are fighting tooth and nail against impeaching a president for abusing his power.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What evidence do you have that these witnesses want to be hauled in front of a partisan pep rally?
We don't know, and now we can't know. Trump, their boss, has ordered them not to. They are no longer able to really tell us whether they want to or not.
Not that it even matters since SCOTUS upheld the president's executive privilege. Congress isn't legally allowed to disrupt and obstruct the Executive branch by sabotaging the president's cabinet.
He has ordered people who aren't in the cabinet not to co-operate too. Hell, he has even ordered people who are no longer in the government not to co-operate such as Don McGahn. White house counsel aren't even covered by executive privilege in the 1st place. And certainly not after they have left any official role. But the white house is still using the courts to try to block his testimony.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
It is a proud day for americans. A criminal who has abused the office he was entrusted with is finally being shown there are consequences to his actions, maybe for the 1st time in his life given that he has always hidden behind his daddy, his money and his lawyers.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
You can refuse a subpoena by taking it to court, which is well within the right of the person being subpoenaed.
And if the witnesses were choosing, on their own, to fight the subpoena in court you might have a point. But that isn't what is happening. Trump, the alleged criminal, is ordering the witnesses to refuse the subpoena's. That is a very different scenario.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
maybe, maybe not, the fact that supposedly he did would just require a court hearing and order to compel the witnesses to testify, that's how the court systems work. Without an official court order it's basically a request which can be denied, they are asking not ordering.
Clearly you have no idea what a subpoena is. A subpoena is already a legally binding order. The idea that once you receive a legally binding order and then you can just refuse to comply is insane. If you do that once when something seems odd, that would be one thing. When you order everyone to refuse every subpoena, that undermines the entire political system. It is an obvious stall tactic to prevent congress from doing it's constitutionally required job.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
The left wing media didn't apologize as far as I know.
who exactly has to apologize for you to consider "the media" as apologizing? You know there are alot of people in that group right?
They only stopped because everyone found out that it was a hoax most likely.
That is exactly my point. they found out he hadn't done what he was accused of and they stopped.
Telling her to calm down was immature, but not nasty like labeling a teenager as a racist. (I know you agree that it was wrong, I am just juxtaposing).
the difference is there was evidence that nick was a racist. It was later proven to be inaccurate, but there was grounds to think that. (media should have checked more before attacking, i'm not defending that)
But greta hasn't done anything but call for people to fight climate change, which we all know is happening. Engaging in juvenile and personal attacks on her for that shows that the right doesn't care about morality, they just want an enemy to point at to distract people.
Never said I don't care. I specifically said to not personally attack children, but attacking what she says is 100% on the table.
I totally agree. But I haven't seen anyone attack the substance of her point. I have seen people attack her intelligence, her looks, her maturity, her "anger problems" etc.
We don't know her motives. Maybe she likes the attention that this climate alarmism brings. Her parents are activists from what I understand, so it looks like they are using her for their political goals.
Even if her motives were bad (which there is no evidence for), she is advocating for fighting something that most people understand is a real threat, climate change. We are already starting to feel it's effects and it is only getting worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I have no issue with polygamy. As long as everyone involved is aware the relationship is going to be polygamist and is ok with that, then it is fine.
But I would have a problem with someone marrying under the assumption that relationship is monogamous, then marrying again without the consent of their 1st partner.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
prove it's because of discrimination and not lack of motivation since those who are highly motivated to succeed and even thrive.
Like i said, it is complicated and that is not the point of this topic. But racism is certainly a large part of it.
There must be thousands of examples you could give where someone with bad socioeconomic status who works hard, doesn't get arrested, doesn't have a child at too early of an age and can't make it because of "systemic discrimination"
So because a small number of people can manage to succeed in a broken system, then the system must be perfect? That is the kind of reductive thinking people use to block any kind of reform.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Which is within his right to do so. If you think it’s an overstepping of power, you go to the courts and they’ll interpret it. There’s a reason why there are 3 branches.
It is within the rights of a defendant to order the witnesses to his crimes not to testify? You have a very strange opinion of how this is supposed to work. If the president really did have the power to prevent witnesses testifying to his crime he would be immune from criminal prosecution, he would be immune from being investigated by congress. He would be entirely above the law as no one would have the power to investigate him. That is a king.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
the double standard is amazing. Sandman did nothing yet media was quick to jump on him. Greta goes to political summits and criticizes world leaders on climate. There’s a difference. She’s spoiled. He’s not.
Nick looked like he was instigating violence at a protest. So the media denounced him for violence. i agree they acted without all the facts. But they were denouncing violence. Greta is trying to get the world to actually listen about a massive impending threat. She is not advocating for violence. She is completely peaceful. She has done nothing wrong. The right are attacking her personally.
I agree there is a double standard. You want to point to what happened to nick as bad (which it was) and then point to what is happening to Greta (which is just as bad) and don't care. It is you who has the double standard.
And also, she is advocating for a cause that effects the entire world. That is literally a selfless act.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
The damage was already done when they stopped attacking Nick. They permanently damaged his image.
I didn't say what happened to nick was right. it wasn't. But when the left wing media realized their mistake they stopped. That at least shows some level morality. Right wing media knows Greta has done nothing wrong and they are attacking her. That shows 0 morality.
You don't see this kind of coordinated media attack from the right wing. She was told to "chill". Not very vicious in comparison.
What? Are you serious? They are smearing her all over the right wing media. The president himself is insulting her.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Unfortunately I doubt that Scottish Nationalism has much to do with current and future social aspirations.Similarly neither does Irish or Welsh nationalism,As is usually the case, nationalism is more often than not based on historical grudges, ergo backward thinking.
Fair enough. Historical grudges certainly play a part. But adding new grudged, like dragging them out of the EU against their will certainly doesn't help. And I would argue just generally being dicks and ignoring what they want is a good way to push them to leave.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I haven't watched her extensively, but I know that a lot of climate change discussion is fear mongering. Some is correct, such as the world heating up, but other aspects are either fabricated or exaggerated.
So virtually all climate scientists agree. All the models say pretty much the same things. They aren't fear mongering. They are warning the world what is coming. We are already feeling it and it is getting worse. It is going to continue unless we change course drastically and very soon.
I am not okay with either. The whole forum topic is showing the hypocrisy of the left-wing, especially the media. They attacked Nick with little regard for his young age and the fact that he did nothing. They then flip out when anyone criticizes this gal.
The difference is what they are "accused" of. Nick looked like he was triggering violence at a protest. I agree that wasn't the case, but it looked like it was. Greta has never been accused of anything at all. She peacefully calls for action to save the world. The attacks against her are mostly personal when she hasn't done anything and everyone knows that.
The difference is when the left found out nick didn't do anything wrong they stopped. The right knows Greta hasn't done anything wrong and they still keep on attacking.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
no, just because the result you wanted didn't work out doesn't mean countries should leave the UKfucking nonsense
lol that is the exact argument brexiteers are making. The EU isn't letting them do exactly what they wanted so they are leaving.
Scotland wants to be in the EU. England is the only part of the UK that really wants to leave. But they are dragging Northern Ireland and Scotland with them. Of course they should have the right to decide if they want to separate from England when England obviously doesn't give a shit what they want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
They went to high crime neighborhoods, which just so happen to be mainly non-Asian minority neighborhoods. Unless you are saying they should go to low crime neighborhoods, I don't see why you have a problem with this.
What a huge coincidence that the very poor neighborhoods happen to be black hispanic right? There are a number of reasons why those groups are proportionately poor and therefore disproportionately likely to turn to crime. Many of them also have to do with systemic racism.
But I don't think they should have to wait until someone brandishes a firearm in order to stop and frisk, either.
The underlying principle was flawed. Stop and frisk didn't work. They essentially stopped and frisked every black man in new york. But the crime rate went down at the same rate as most other cities. The policy was a failure. And it seriously undermined the credibility of the police. They weren't there to protect and serve if you were black and hispanic.
Of most interracial crime, white people suffer at the hands of black people much more often than the reverse.
Because black communities are disproportionately poorer than white communities. And the reasons for that, while complicated, also include racism. So white people are helping keep them poor, they turn to crime as a result, then white people blame them for being violent and start harassing them taking away their rights.
So, if you look at it from the perspective of why that "privilege" exists, it is because we aren't the ones killing and robbing them.
we are the ones robbing them. White people just found a way to do it legally. Black people had to turn to an illegal method since they didn't get to design the system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
. Blacks in the same socioeconomic status as whites generally have more privileges afforded to them from affirmative action.
but it is extremely hard for black people to get into the same socioeconomic status due to the systemic discrimination.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
But his son was doing some corrupt stuff that initiated a huge conflict of interest. He stood to benefit from that information not going public. The man fired would have found out and made it public.
What information? Biden's son working there was public knowledge. It wasn't a secret. There was nothing that could go public that could hurt biden.
Yeah, Republicans do it too and it pisses me off. Used to think both sides did it, just that Democrats do it more. It is actually about even and rather saddening.
Unfortunately that is part of the payout that politicians expect. But don't pretend that trump is any different. His children are getting rich off of his presidency.
Hunter was hired in 2014 because of some corruption, but Shokin was fired in 2016. Biden led Ukraine foreign policy and his son got six figures from a large Ukranian company. That is the issue here.
So what? The thing that was being investigated happened before Hunter was on the board. There is no suggestion that he was involved with anything significant at Burisma anyway. Therefore there was no chance that Hunter would get caught up in it and therefore nothing for Biden to gain.
I looked it up and only found that no Americans were charged with any crimes regarding Russian collusion.
No one has ever been charged with that. It isn't a legal term. It is a buzz word pushed by Trump and Fox.
No, I mean don't say the president meddled in the election with the help of the Russians when you have absolutely no evidence that he did.
I know the russians meddled in the election to help trump. I know the trump team had over 100 contacts with russians that they denied ever existed. It all looks mighty suspicious, but since the trump government did everything they could to block the investigation, we might never really know the truth.
As you said, there were no crimes, yet the whole time they were planning to impeach him for it.
I didn't say there were no crimes. Trump committed multiple counts of obstruction if nothing else. Also, an impeachment inquiry is just that, an inquiry. It is the investigation before pressing charges. Starting an inquiry over the russian scandal would not have been out of line. Pushing forward with articles of impeachment with evidence of crimes would have been.
If you think there is corruption, investigate it, but don't pretend it is a sure thing when you have no evidence.
Who said it was a sure thing? It was highly likely. And since they were caught giving the ruissians polling data and having secret meetings with them, that they then lied about, I'd say it still is. But no, it can't be proven.
It is a Ukrainian company, so they are looking into it on their end.
He said to look into Biden specifically, not burisma. Biden is not a ukranian company. He is a US vice president.
The FBI hasn't really proven to be non-partisan as of late.
Are you aware that an investigation was done that says the exact opposite of your opinion? also, trump can appoint the head of the FBI.
Hillary didn't get convicted of anything? Really?
no. what do you think she was convicted of?
Also, all of the texts by FBI leadership members saying that Trump will never be president, etc.
lol 2 FBI agents, 1 of whom wasn't even really involved, texted and said they didn't think trump would be president. Most of the country was saying similar things. that isn't evidence of anything.
If the whistle blower hadn't caused a ruckus, this wouldn't have been so widely publicized to smear Biden.
If the whistle blower hadn't "caused a ruckus" the president of the Ukraine was going to do an interview announcing an official criminal investigation of Joe Biden. That would have blown up the news, exactly as trump planned. The reason that didn't happen is that trump got caught and so they cancelled the interview. This was going to be big either way, but trump's crimes got reported before the Ukrainians smeared Biden.
Also, again, the FBI cannot investigate a Ukrainian company because they have jurisdiction in the US. So, the Ukraine government were the correct people to go to.
Trump didn't ask them to investigate Burisma. He asked them to investigate Biden. If a US vice president committed a crime, that is a job for the FBI, not the president of Ukraine. Trump knows that. He tried to make Ukraine do it because he had leverage on them and knew the FBI would actually investigate and determine Biden didn't do anything wrong. But the Ukrainians could just announce they were investigating but never come to a solid conclusion. That would let trump use it as a weapon even though Biden was innocent.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Then the Congress can call millions of witnesses to testify how Trump criminally violated them. Horseshit.
Why would you do that? The point is that trump committed crimes. White house employees are witnesses to that crime. But he has ordered them not to talk. That is obstruction of justice.
In fact, the very idea that a person could be thrown in jail for "obstructing Congress" proves how much Congress has abused their authority.
umm what? One of the main purposes of congress is to act as a check on the executive branch. If the president can simply refuse to let them investigate then they cannot possibly act as that check. That combined with the justice department being told they can't charge him with a crime would make him completely immune from any repercussion of criminality, IE a king.
The Congress should never be above the law, above the courts, or above the SCOTUS.
They aren't. The law is very clear that they have the power to investigate and impeach the president if necessary. You are arguing they shouldn't be allowed to investigate the president, thus making the president above the law.
Even the FBI can't demand these things without a writ from the courts, and even the FBI has abused that authority through the FISA court improprieties and ommissions as well.
I'm not sure what your point is. If you think someone has broken the law you report it to law enforcement. You don't go to a foreign government and extort them into investigating your political rivals.
There's definitely abuses of power, but it sure as hell aint Trump.
lol congress does what the constitution says they can and must do and you accuse them of abuse of power. Trump uses government funds to extort a foreign government into smearing his political rival and you think that is fine. the TDS is strong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Giving aid and giving bribes are 2 very different things.
no it's part of the original definition of bribery when the constitution was written. Basically, if you use your public office to get something of value for yourself, it is treated as bribery. So when trump abused his office to get them to smear his political rival, that is bribery.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh really, Trump is just keeping his "victims" in his administration from testifying about crimes perpetrated against them. What a load of horse shit.
The victims are the american people, not the people in the government. He is preventing witnesses from testifying about his crimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
God, libtards are just salty about Trump and are making him look as bad as they can in the public eye. And please give me an explanation for those "crimes".
Using the power of your office to gain something of personal value is considered bribery. So dangling aid and a white house visit for assistance with an election is bribery.
Abuse of office is, well, abusing the power of your office. In this case he used the power of the presidency to try to interfere in an american election.
He ordered witnesses not to testify in an impeachment inquiry. That is obstruction of justice. Also mueller detailed multiple counts of obstruction of justice as well.
he has violated the emoluments clause pretty much constantly. It basically says that a president cannot gain financially from being president either from US citizens or foreigners. He diverted military aircraft to stay at his resorts, he tried to put the G7 summit at one of his resorts, blocks of hotel rooms were booked and paid for by companies and foreign governments but then no one stays in them. There are a great many of these violations.
getting any thing of value from a foreigner that helps with an election is a violation of the elections act. When he asked them to smear his political rival, that was a thing of value to his campaign.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's separation of powers. If Congress wants to destroy a sitting president, they can collect facts outside of his administration.
So everyone who knows what crimes were committed works for the government. Trump, according to you, has the power to order government employees not to testify. So under your view, a president should be allowed to order all witnesses to a crime not to testify and there should be no check on that power?
The power to prevent investigation into themselves is King territory.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
one is an impeachment inquiry, the other is not. these are 2 very different areas. And the supreme court has ruled in the past that a president has to comply in an impeachment inquiry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Neighborhoods are essentially segregated by raceBlacks and Hispanics commit more crimeTherefore, they are in high crime neighborhoodsCops then patrol high crime neighborhoods and search more people in said neighborhoods.
That doesn't really make it any better. They created a policy to harass innocent people without cause and then only applied it in black or Hispanic neighborhoods while ignoring white neighborhoods. That might actually make it more racist honestly.
But, assuming they did target by race, it was a judgement that nearly perfectly aligned with statistics. I wasn't one of those cops, so I don't know if anything prompted them to search those people.
I think if the policy had been used only when they actually had reasonable grounds to suspect they were armed, it wouldn't have been an issue. And the policy says that is what they were going to do. But since the policy had a massive fail rate, we know they didn't do that. They used it indiscriminately whenever they felt like it. That, mixed with the fact that police command didn't care that this was being done created an environment where minority groups actively saw the police as enemies even if they weren't criminals. I'm not criminal but if i was constantly being hassled by cops for no reason I would see them as an enemy too. This actually undermines the effectiveness of the police.
But all of that to loop back around. Police thought black people were more suspicious, so they used their tool to target black people. White people didn't have to suffer at the hands of this policy, that is white privilege.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Obstruction of Congress was a bullshit charge anyway. Trump is not stopping Congress from blowing itself up.
he ordered witnesses not to testify and hid information in an impeachment inquiry. That is obstruction.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
That article is a bit misleading. The supreme court agreed to hear cases about whether congress can subpoena his financial records in entirely unrelated investigations into him. It has nothing to do with trumps attempts to block the impeachment inquiry with him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
So you think there is a problem with 90% of stops being blacks and Latinos, eh? Well, let us look up specific arrest statistics for NYC.
ok so we know for a fact that they targeted ethnic minorities. You are arguing that because those groups have a higher crime rate, it is totally fine to discriminate against them. But we know that 93% of the stops found no weapons and the vast majority found no crimes at all. So we also know that they were abusing this by targetting people that showed no signs of being guilty of anything.
so to summarize, we know they were targeting based on ethnicity and we know they were not waiting for any reasonably reason to search them, they were doing it at random. Do you want to argue that isnt a racist policy?
and again, white people were presumed innocent, black people were presumed guilty. That is an excellent example of white privilege.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Sorry, I mean the primaries.
ok. so what? Why would primaries prevent congress from doing it's job and prosecuting high crimes?
And no, he didn't commit multiple crimes.
yes he did. Bribery, abuse of office, obstruction of justice, violation of the emoluments clause, violation of the elections act, just to name a few.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The suspicious people were far more likely to happen to have brown skin because they simply committed crimes at a higher rate. Period.
It is this kind of thinking that caused the policy to be racist, thank you for the example. The black and latino population of new york was 54%. But blacks and latinos made up 90% of the stops done under stop and frisk. Police assumed that black people were more likely to commit a crime and therefore would stop them for little to no reason at all. Being black and in public was enough grounds for them to determine they were "suspicious".
The frisks were only supposed to be done when they had reasonable grounds to suspect they might be armed. But in the vast majority of cases (93%) no weapons were found. The only way for that stat to be so high is that they were doing checks at random for little to no reason. And since 90% of the people being stopped were black or latino, they were doing this almost exclusively to black and latino people.
If you asked those cops a direct question like "are you a racist" they would certainly say no. But if you checked their records you would find most of them had almost elusively targeted black people for their stop and frisks.
Stop and frisk was the most effective gun elimination program in the history of the country
lol you're kidding right? The policy was a massive failure. The violent crime rate in new york went down, but at pretty much the same rate as other cities did at the same time. And they weren't doing stop and frisk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Ok, assuming your drama is true. Should we be spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to impeach him, when the next election is literally 2 months away?
He committed crimes. Your question is, should someone who has committed multiple crimes be charged for them. Yes, yes they should.
Also, the next election is almost a year away, not 2 months. it is november 2020.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Wow, extortion? Libtards are the definition of melodramatic.
Ukraine is in a war with Russia. They need that aid to defend themselves. Trump withheld it in exchange for a smear job on his rival. Withholding something someone needs in exchange for "a favor" is extortion. You either don't know what extortion is, don't know what trump did, or don't know what melodrama is. I'm not sure which.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The idea that america is somehow protecting the free world by spending INSANE amounts of money on it's military is a lie.Unless it is the Ukraine.
I don't believe that aid money came from the military budget. So no, america's military spending is way, way out of control. It needs to be cut down by like 40-50%
Nice Libertarian talking point.
Not wanting to spend trillions on the military isn't a talking point. It is what the majority of the country should want. You could provide all sorts of services and actually help people, but instead that money gets given to giant companies to piss away halfway around the world killing people.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Opening an investigation based on evidence of a stated quid pro quo is justice. Don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message.
Again, a quid pro quo is not a crime. The circumstances matter. Asking for a prosecutor to be removed when you have nothing to gain (as biden did) and because lots of people want that prosecutor removed because he is corrupt is one thing. Asking the leader of a foreign country to publicly announce the investigation of your political rival (by name) is very, very different.
Biden engaged in rather standard diplomacy. Trump engaged in several crimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I'm unsure and have heard good arguments from both sides.
The whole white or male privilege is mostly just about assumptions. When people look at someone white, or a man vs a woman, they have different initial assumptions.
The stop and frisk program in new york is a good example. The policy didn't say to target black people. It said to stop and frisk people you thought looked suspicious. No white stock brokers were getting stopped by that. It was overwhelmingly poor people and people of color being harassed by cops.
When the cops saw a white teenager on the street they were much less likely to think they looked "suspicious" than if they saw a black teenager. That is white privilege. The assumption of innocence vs the assumption of guilt. But that isn't that white people are getting "extra" rights. All people should be treated the way those cops treated white people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And who is going to regulate government that can't provide the infrastructure people need to travel from point A to point B?
The people. That is how democracy works.
California cities are among the most polluted because of the stop and go traffic, not because their cars are somehow dirtier than the rest of the world's cars.
California has much larger cities and population than most states. Making the cars cleaner helps fix the problem. Making the cars dirtier, as trump wants to (and is suing to make them dirtier) makes the problem worse.
The average car in California burns more than twice as much fuel in stop and go traffic to go the same distances as anywhere else.
of course highway driving in a low population states uses less fuel than driving in an urban area. no one questions that. But making the cars cleaner still helps with the problem.
Who is going to fix that? Probably not the same people in charge for the last 50 years.
Who has been in politics for 50 years? I guarantee you it is not the same people working on those regulations.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Republicans cannot expose corruption in Democrats they are running against because that would help them, got it.
They cannot use foreign governments to do so. If they want to get the FBI to investigate that would be normal. Getting a foreign government to do it is a crime.
Biden was a very notable case. He bragged on video about getting someone fired form Ukraine. He had an ACTUAL quid pro quo by saying he wouldn't give them funding.
The whole quid pro quo is a right wing talking point. The problem isn't giving something and getting something. The circumstances matter. Biden used his office to get Ukraine to fight corruption in a way that didn't benefit himself or his family at all. Trump used his office to get Ukraine to announce an investigation of his political rival, by name. Not only was there no evidence his rival had committed a crime, he stood to personally profit (via an election) from doing so. There is a massive difference.
The whole Ukraine thing with his son seems like some sort of corruption.
agreed. this is the swampy kind of corruption that exists all over the place in Washington. Sadly it isn't illegal though. And I mean that genuinely, I want that to be illegal.
His son worked some place that he knew nothing about and got big payments monthly. Seems like there are some big conflicts of interest there.
I agree this kind of thing is shitty. But sadly both democrats and republicans (including trump and McConnell) do this stuff all the time.
He proceeded to keep money from them until they fired the man investigating the company that his son worked at.
Biden pushed for his firing because he wasn't investigating things. That triggered a new investigation of Burisma. But since hunter did work at burisma during the time the alleged crimes had been committed, there was literally no way he could be implicated. Therefore biden had nothing to gain.
It's also worth noting, pushing to have him fired wasn't Biden's idea either. People who also had nothing to personally gain also wanted the prosecutor fired. Biden was just the guy who got sent to carry it out. So pretending like it was this corrupt plan he hatched is all bullshit.
Ok, but then you guys completely make sh** up like the whole Russian collusion crap, do you have a problem with it?
What was made up? The trump campaign said they had no contact with any russians. We now know they had over 100 contacts with russians including meetings in trump tower and giving the russians polling data. There was collusion with russians. There doesn't appear to be evidence of a crime related to that collusion. But investigating those contacts that trump claimed never happened was a legitimate investigation. If they hadn't obstructed it and lied about it repeatedly maybe it wouldn't have had to become such a big thing.
Corruption shouldn't be covered up or projected.
And by projected, I assume you mean that legitimate concerns shouldn't be investigated.
Had he told the Ukranians to smear Biden or falsify evidence that would hurt him, I would completely agree with you. However, asking a country(in which we have no jurisdiction) to look into someone who may have done something bad and then giving back the results is in no way a bad thing.
lol he specifically asked them to investigate Biden, by name. That is not Ukraine's jurisdiction. That is the FBI's jurisdiction. When he asked ukraine to do it, he committed a crime.
If bringing the truth to light undermines democracy, then your vision of the future is truly frightening.
extorting a foreign country to smear your political rivals is "bringing the truth to light"? If there were truth to the accusations he would have sent it to the FBI, as he should have. He extorted Ukraine to do it because he knew there was no evidence Biden had done anything wrong. All he cared about was that press conference and getting the president of Ukraine to suggest Biden was corrupt. He could then run an election campaign pretending Biden is corrupt. It would have been a great strategy if he hadn't gotten caught committing crimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
After decades of government action that have produced the opposite of the desired result, it’s time to leave our poor milk cows alone and take a harder look at the sacred-cows of government regulation.
Or, we could accept that de-regulating companies that would love to poison us to earn a dollar is an insane idea.
Is every regulation a good idea? no of course not. If regulations aren't having the desired affect they should be changed.
Is removing all regulation a good idea? and emphatic, undeniable no. Regulation is desperately needed. In many areas we don't have anywhere near enough regulation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe Greta is just a target for outrage from people in America doing the proper thing by lowering emissions while China gets a pass to achieve a projected TRIPLE the USA emission rate in the next 20 years.
Has she said that only the US has lower emissions? no, she is telling people it is a world problem and every country needs to act on this.
Also, please provide a source for your stat. From what I have read, China is doing way more to curb climate change the US government is doing. I would imagine that having a population about 4 times larger the US might have something to do with that.
The US is actively trying to make it worse. They are fighting for coal power, lowering emissions standards for cars and even suing to block California from having better standards, attacking wind power every chance trump gets from some reason etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
We were right wing from the beginning. Went super left from FDR to Johnson.
This is a fantasy. America has had left ideas for a long time. public roads, public schools, anti-trust laws etc. People realized a long time ago the uncontrolled capitalism is a catastrophe. The problem is that people started to forget the evils it caused because left wing ideas solved the problems.
When no one was burning to death because the company locked all the doors, people stopped thinking it was as important to keep those companies under control. As it became less of a priority for the public those companies started bribing politicians into letting them get away with terrible things again. So Reagan, and then virtually all politicians since then have basically full on sold out to the rich creating the train wreck of an economy we have now where the rich control everything and the poor can barely survive. People are now remembering why left wing policies were needed as the problems are all coming back. That is why the left is resurgent among young people.
The right-wing is gaining a lot of ground in Europe because they realize that egalitarian bs doesn't work.
The right wing is gaining ground, largely, because of xenophobia and fear. The idea that muslims, or mexicans, or gay couples or the EU are going to come and take things away from you. And like all fear campaigns, they are based on a grain of truth to give some credibility, then they add on tons and tons of lies to fuel it.
Without us providing for all of your favorite lefty countries' defense, they would be bankrupting themselves with their economically illiterate policies.
Lol the top 10 countries in the world in military spending includes 4 members of NATO (US, France, Germany, UK) and 2 other american allies (Japan, South Korea). The idea that america is somehow protecting the free world by spending INSANE amounts of money on it's military is a lie. America could cut military spending by half and still be the #1 spender by a wide margin. You don't need to spend 100's of billions per year in order to protect your country. The US needs to do that because the military industrial complex wants to get paid and politicians are corrupt.
Created:
Posted in:
ok. he is irrelevant to this discussion. He didn't do anything. Video made it look like he did.He smiled at a psycho that was banging a drum and screaming at him, yet the media said the smiling guy is some sort of villain. The Washington Post is getting sued for libel, fortunately.
Also, Greta willingly put herself in the public eye by going to events and speaking (about a subject that, let's be honest, she has no knowledge about), so she is completely open to be criticized.
The problem is that most of the criticism is stupid. The right can't really refute the arguments she makes, so they attack her personally.
Nick Sandmann had no say in that being publicized, so if either should be worse than the other, Sandmann's case would be it.
I agree that the criticism Nick got turned out to be unwarranted. I do not condone that. But you are using 1 injustice done to nick to justify a different injustice done to Greta. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? If you actually thought attacking them was wrong you wouldn't be ok with the personal attacks on Greta.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Greta has and will never do anything, nick sandman did nothing wrong, so many liberals attacked him
She has brought climate change more into the foreground of public discourse. Since climate change is a global threat, making people see that and talking about it could literally save humanity from extinction. I didn't say nick sandman did anything wrong. But the initial video that was released looked like he did. But he and Greta and not really alike.
Trump did not commit a crime
he has committed many. Obstruction of justice, witness tampering and abuse of office just to name a few.
he did not interfere in the election,
He didn't succeed no. But he tried and got caught.
Hunter Biden is a criminal
lol what crime did he commit? i have never heard anyone name any crime he could have committed (related to Ukraine). He sat on the board of a company and did nothing for them. it's scummy, but it isn't a crime.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
The Scottish Nationalists total vote count on Thursday was completely reflective of the 2014 referendum. So Sturgeon et al certainly have no mandate for another referendum.
The SNP got 45% of the total votes. Labor got 18.6% The Lib Dems got 9.5%. That means that 73.1% of scotland voted for a party that wants to remain in the EU. Does that mean they all want independence, of course not. But the only way to find out is with a referendum. And since England has screwed them over and is about to drag them out of the EU against their will, it is entirely possible the situation has changed.
And it is only Nationalists who attempt to factionalise societies. Fortunately in the U.K nationalists are still in the minority, especially in the region that you regard as England.
What are you talking about? The conservative party is the nationalist party. They want to torch their international obligations because they can't serve fish and chips in a newspaper or some nonsense like that. The nationalists have taken over england.
And as for Europe I would suggest that you first take a look at the Nationalist machinations that are occurring at the fringes of the European Union before coming to too many quick and inaccurate conclusions about European Unity.
I don't believe I ever said that the rest of Europe didn't also have nationalist nutjobs. But England has already fallen for their nationalist nutjob.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Brexit might put more burden on them to keep supporting their policies, which might make it collapse(fingers crossed).
Let's hope it prompts them to move further to the left, like america is.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
We need another crusade. Deus Vult!
Lol. because the only possible actions we can take are unquestioning support of a tyrannical regime, or going on a crusade. There is no other options we could take such as reducing or suspending aid until they stop abusing their minorities.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
England has proven pretty clearly that they don't give a shit about Ireland. They are destroying the UK. Once Scotland and Ireland leave they wont be the UK anymore. Right idiocy is literally destroying their country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
But why can't a Californian state government be as huge as they want and you can live there and be "protected from the oligarchy"?
They could, but at that point they may as well be their own country. Once you break down the federal government and make it useless, you essentially destroy america. You no longer have 1 country, you have 50 countries.
Conservatives don't want your huge spending programs and tax hikes. Why should you force your will on us?
If the majority of americans feel that way they are free to vote for that. However if they got their way and tore down the federal government, then no one would get to vote for anything any more.
If you want the government taking care of you from cradle to grave, that is a perfectly fine position.
I'm glad you approve. The federal government exists to protect and provide services to it's people.
I want to keep what I earn and make a living for myself with the government not limiting my freedom.
You prefer to have unelected CEOs of multinational corporations limit your freedom. I know. As I said, that would be much, much worse.
And Britain is leaving because it isn't benefiting from the relationship.
It is benefiting. However a prolonged propaganda campaign has convinced people otherwise.
Sure, they had the choice to join, but now they are realizing that the EU is able to force them to take actions that adversely affect their country.
I have yet to really hear of any examples of this though. The ones that typically get pointed to are UK laws, not EU laws. For example right wing idiots like to say that the EU banned using news papers to hold fish and chips. But that was the UK that did that because newspapers are full of poison. They also claimed the EU tried to ban a specific kind of potato chip, which was just a lie.
The EU is a cop out, easy answer to problems that would better be solved by individual pieces of legislation negotiated between countries.
The EU is exactly what you said would be a good thing, independent countries working together. It is a body that negotiates legislation between countries. You are describing the EU as something that would be better than the EU. it is kind of funny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Lol, what you don't understand is that the will of the people is split. Has the government under Trump been representing your will? No. Did the Obama administration represent my will? No.
Bu you get to vote for that government. If the people don't like it they can vote in a new one. If you got what you wanted and seriously weakened the government, it would be billionaires and multi-national corporations that would fill the power vacuum. And you would have no say at all in how they used that power. I will take a government I get a vote for over an oligarchy.
What does the EU do that couldn't be achieved by individual nations that wish to cooperate?
Lol that is exactly what the EU is. Individual nations that wish to cooperate.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Ireland for the Irish!
The problem is that the majority in Northern Ireland don't want to be independent. They want to be part of the UK. Or at least they did before Boris sold them out. We shall see what they want now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
That's my point. I want the federal government to have very little power. I want most power to be at the state and local levels.
so a weak and ineffectual government that will allow life to be dominated by the rich and powerful leaving the poor little more than peasants. I'll stick with a government that represents the will of the people.
That depends. Some of the poorer countries benefit from the EU, while the richer ones don't.
they all benefit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lucy
but god Labour's strategy was so bad.
Agreed. The problem was that Corbyn is a pro-brexit leader of a pro-remain party. He wanted brexit to happen, he just didn't want to get blamed for it. So he essentially didn't fight against it very hard but couldn't come out in favor of it either. As a result, anyone who was voting for brexit had no reason to vote labor. If you are pro-brexit you'd vote conservative. If you are anti-brexit you'd have to vote lib dem or something.
He totally screwed over the labor party, and by extension, the entire country.
Created: