• We're a fun, friendly, and diverse group of planners, placemakers, students, and other folks who found their people here. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! Use your email address, or register through your Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account.

The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
26,726
Points
55
Grand jury testimony (legally protected due to personally sensitive information), classified info, etc.
Plus there are likely to be redactions for ongoing investigations (ie. investigations for a slew of criminal activities coming down the pike from SDNY)
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
13,548
Points
36
Who wants to bet the released version looks like this:


It was the XXX of XXX, it was the XXX of XXX.
 

JNA

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
24,574
Points
50
Sarah Sanders: 'I don't think Congress' is 'smart enough' to look through Trump's taxes

I certainly don't trust them to look through the decades of success that the President has and determine anything,"
 

AG74683

Cyburbian
Messages
5,758
Points
23
Reading Vol. II of the Mueller report right now. I'm actually impressed with Jeff Sessions, Don McGahn, and even Corey Lewandowski. All three were asked repeatedly by Trump to do things unethical and borderline illegal, and they refused. It cost all of them. McGahn especially, he really held strong even with Trump perpetually breathing down his neck.
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
13,548
Points
36
I glanced through the report I'm happy to see it's not as thoroughly redacted as I expected. So in my quick glance I get the attitude of, yep, he did some shady sh!t, but being a lawyer and not a judge I'm not going to say if it was wrong and it's not my place to press charges. I'll let congress do that.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
14,693
Points
38
Yea the report certainly doesn't exonerate him. It really makes him look pretty crazy. It also makes the people around him look weak (except that they protected him by not actually doing what he asked of them). But being mean and crazy isn't illegal.

I hope the D's will move on, but from the early reporting, it doesn't look like that will happen. With 18 months until an election, they should probably just focus on that. Use the damn report in how you run against him, but we have to move on.

I will say that no one who is innocent says "This is the end of my Presidency" when you find out they are looking into you.
 

AG74683

Cyburbian
Messages
5,758
Points
23
Yea the report certainly doesn't exonerate him. It really makes him look pretty crazy. It also makes the people around him look weak (except that they protected him by not actually doing what he asked of them). But being mean and crazy isn't illegal.

I will say that no one who is innocent says "This is the end of my Presidency" when you find out they are looking into you.
I think that's the best part about it. No one even listened to most of his crazy stuff. They just refused to do it, or figured out ways to deflect it.

And honestly I think his line about "end of the Presidency" was more because he had zero idea what the special counsel was even for. I think he is just so dumb and inexperienced he just assumed that the counsel would completely railroad him, regardless of whether he did anything wrong. It also seems like a lot of his cronies were doing stuff that perhaps he wasn't even directly aware of. I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just saying that to me the comment sort of reeked of "I do not know what this is, but I know it's really bad!".
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
14,693
Points
38
I think that's the best part about it. No one even listened to most of his crazy stuff. They just refused to do it, or figured out ways to deflect it.

And honestly I think his line about "end of the Presidency" was more because he had zero idea what the special counsel was even for. I think he is just so dumb and inexperienced he just assumed that the counsel would completely railroad him, regardless of whether he did anything wrong. It also seems like a lot of his cronies were doing stuff that perhaps he wasn't even directly aware of. I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just saying that to me the comment sort of reeked of "I do not know what this is, but I know it's really bad!".
His issue will be with the Southern District of New York. The Mueller Report just set the stage for a group who really doesn't like Trump. I certainly wouldn't feel nearly as comfortable as Trump seems to be playing if I was him. Maybe this is just his way to puff up his chest and ignore the reality that is likely coming? Or he truly believes if he just says the same thing (no collusion no obstruction) over and over again that it means he is safe.

Either way, the coming months should be interesting.
 

AG74683

Cyburbian
Messages
5,758
Points
23
His issue will be with the Southern District of New York. The Mueller Report just set the stage for a group who really doesn't like Trump. I certainly wouldn't feel nearly as comfortable as Trump seems to be playing if I was him. Maybe this is just his way to puff up his chest and ignore the reality that is likely coming? Or he truly believes if he just says the same thing (no collusion no obstruction) over and over again that it means he is safe.

Either way, the coming months should be interesting.
I think the issue was always going to be with the Southern District. It was pretty clear from the beginning that in this case the federal charges (if any) wouldn't even begin to compare to the state charges.

It seems like he obviously intended to obstruct the investigation, but his folks never actually did what he asked them to do. So did he actually obstruct it? I think this is why the report was hesitant to say flat out that the President obstructed the special counsel. He tried, but his own people didn't do anything he asked. I guess if "conspiracy to obstruct" was a charge, that would be a possibility right?
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
26,726
Points
55
It seems like he obviously intended to obstruct the investigation, but his folks never actually did what he asked them to do. So did he actually obstruct it? I think this is why the report was hesitant to say flat out that the President obstructed the special counsel. He tried, but his own people didn't do anything he asked. I guess if "conspiracy to obstruct" was a charge, that would be a possibility right?
I don't think one needs to succeed to obstruct, simply attempt to do so.
 

AG74683

Cyburbian
Messages
5,758
Points
23
I don't think one needs to succeed to obstruct, simply attempt to do so.
It's actually kinda hazy there. Obstruction requires both the intent AND an actual action. The failure of his underlings to do his bidding may have actually helped him since there was no actual action of obstruction. The Comey firing may be obstruction but it's difficult to prove. Changing Trump Jr.'s note on the Trump Tower meeting may be obstruction, but again it's very difficult to prove that the intent was malicious. This isn't like Watergate. The chances of Trump winning in a full legal trial are pretty good because the evidence is just not strong enough.

It's up to Congress to decide. DOJ policy prohibits a sitting President from being subject to a criminal trial. To flat out accuse Trump of criminal obstruction by Mueller would have been problematic because the President couldn't go to trial to clear his name which would in all reality preclude him from due process.
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
26,726
Points
55
But what IS clear is that it's not legal to impeach a republican President if an investigation was started by democrats. Both Ms Conway and Fox news agree so it must be true. I'd say this will effectively put a stopper to all those uppity house democrats and their illegal investigations once and for all.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,985
Points
29
But what IS clear is that it's not legal to impeach a republican President if an investigation was started by democrats. Both Ms Conway and Fox news agree so it must be true. I'd say this will effectively put a stopper to all those uppity house democrats and their illegal investigations once and for all.
"uppity"

Really? That word is not a dog whistle. Its a flare gun shot into a Alabama fireworks stand after dark.

You must have been channeling your inner Joe Biden, "They're gonna put y'all back in chains."...because everyone knows that if you hold any political perspective other than that of a cutting edge progressive, you must be part of the vast racist white supremacist consortium.

Now I gotta go. I've got a full day of suppressing other people's civil rights ahead of me.
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
26,726
Points
55
Personally, I tend to agree with Pelosi's view that pursuing impeachment at this point is not the way to go. The unfortunate fact is that despite all of Trump's obstructive antics, at the end of the day a conviction in the Senate isn't going to happen and the public already knows it. If impeachment hearings are initiated now, it is likely do two things: 1) create the impression congress is wasting their time given the foregone conclusion there will be no conviction and Trump will not be removed from office; and 2) the likely timeline for impeachment proceedings would end the process later this year, leaving Trump a full year to campaign without that cloud over his head anymore. Dems should want to see Trump bleeding heading into fall of 2020. It's wiser to hold lots of oversight hearings keeping the public informed of all of his fraudulence and misdeeds, and further cement the public perception that Trump is as corrupt as they come and doesn't care a whit for the rule of law. Then pick at least an adequate candidate and administer an arse whooping at the polls in 2020.

I'm confident we'll have a new President in 2021. We shouldn't make the mistake, of course, of taking his defeat for granted in 2020, but recognize Trump barely eked by in 2016. After assuming office, he enjoyed the shortest honeymoon ever seen, and his approval numbers have consistently lingered in the low 40's. Trump doesn't appear to see it yet, but the biggest threat to his re-election is not from any democrat, but rather, from within his own party. He's done absolutely nothing during his time in office to broaden his appeal. He's now facing a primary opponent in his own party (Bill Weld) and it's quite possible others may throw their hat in the ring as well. Incumbent Presidents that have faced primaries in their own party during the modern era have consistently lost reelection bids. When the el Guapos, michaelskis, and bubbas of the world aren't busy oppressing minorities and yearning for the return of Jefferson Davis (;)), they're occupied with thoughts of being principled conservatives. Principled conservatives represent an appreciable portion of the electorate, and they are NOT amused by things like massively increasing federal deficits, alienating historic allies, fawning over autocrats, and blatant disregard for rule of law. Trump will likely win his primary but if/when that happens it's not unlikely that many real conservatives that might have been willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt in 2016 are going to sit out 2020.
 

Bubba

Cyburbian
Messages
4,777
Points
28
When the el Guapos, michaelskis, and bubbas of the world aren't busy oppressing minorities and yearning for the return of Jefferson Davis (;)), ...
Fun fact - Jefferson Davis was arrested in an area that's sort of my ancestral homeland - not on property owned by anyone in my family, but pretty darn close to it. There is still a road in the general vicinity named after my peeps.
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
11,599
Points
35
Maister, I agree with your analysis. Plus if he is re-elected with a flipped Senate, impeachment will proceed. BUT, if tRump was a democrat, impeachment proceedings would already be in full swing.

The present administration will be harping on The Wall (not Pink Floyd's), the Economy, Fake News & I'm a Victim.

Democrats need to focus on tariff damage slowed economic growth, the previously fiscal republican conservatives (who would not raise the debt ceiling) have run the deficit up, tax cuts went to rich, and health care. Of course abortion and climate change are key issues, but provide endless fodder for repubs.
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
26,726
Points
55
Besides, if you believe Robert Reich, Trump has already been fired.


I don't know if I entirely agree with his conclusion, but he does make several valid observations.
 

Richmond Jake

You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
Messages
18,264
Points
43
I don't remember, I don't recall
I got no memory of anything at all
I don't remember, I don't recall
I got no memory of anything
Anything at all
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,985
Points
29
Personally, I tend to agree with Pelosi's view that pursuing impeachment at this point is not the way to go. The unfortunate fact is that despite all of Trump's obstructive antics, at the end of the day a conviction in the Senate isn't going to happen and the public already knows it. If impeachment hearings are initiated now, it is likely do two things: 1) create the impression congress is wasting their time given the foregone conclusion there will be no conviction and Trump will not be removed from office; and 2) the likely timeline for impeachment proceedings would end the process later this year, leaving Trump a full year to campaign without that cloud over his head anymore. Dems should want to see Trump bleeding heading into fall of 2020. It's wiser to hold lots of oversight hearings keeping the public informed of all of his fraudulence and misdeeds, and further cement the public perception that Trump is as corrupt as they come and doesn't care a whit for the rule of law. Then pick at least an adequate candidate and administer an arse whooping at the polls in 2020.

I'm confident we'll have a new President in 2021. We shouldn't make the mistake, of course, of taking his defeat for granted in 2020, but recognize Trump barely eked by in 2016. After assuming office, he enjoyed the shortest honeymoon ever seen, and his approval numbers have consistently lingered in the low 40's. Trump doesn't appear to see it yet, but the biggest threat to his re-election is not from any democrat, but rather, from within his own party. He's done absolutely nothing during his time in office to broaden his appeal. He's now facing a primary opponent in his own party (Bill Weld) and it's quite possible others may throw their hat in the ring as well. Incumbent Presidents that have faced primaries in their own party during the modern era have consistently lost reelection bids. When the el Guapos, michaelskis, and bubbas of the world aren't busy oppressing minorities and yearning for the return of Jefferson Davis (;)), they're occupied with thoughts of being principled conservatives. Principled conservatives represent an appreciable portion of the electorate, and they are NOT amused by things like massively increasing federal deficits, alienating historic allies, fawning over autocrats, and blatant disregard for rule of law. Trump will likely win his primary but if/when that happens it's not unlikely that many real conservatives that might have been willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt in 2016 are going to sit out 2020.
I'm no longer a principled conservative. I'm a fully out of the closet sorta libertarian. Most of my political opinions can be characterized as follows:
1) I don't give a damn what you do as long as it doesn't come at my expense. I hope the ethnicly and religiously diverse, LGBTQ2, and other manner of kids have a great life free from hate. But, for some reason I sense a lack of reciprocity. I'm tired of the left's labels.
2) Quit using your vote to steal from me. You know who you thieving bastards are.
3) You mind your business and I'll mind mine.
4) The government (at almost every level), some grant funded science, and the media are basically corrupt. Some worse than others. We deserve better.
5) The left is doing its best to use intersectionality and identity politics to justify to themselves an impending pogrom of violence and terror against ordinary people. Yes, I truly believe some people are spending a lot of money to get you worked up to that dangerous tipping point. Those of you older than 40 think about how things have changed. Then graph the curve to its conclusion. I for one welcome your coming red revolution; but for my own reasons.
6) The majority of elected conservatives have no principals or balls. But the man-child president, he gives no fucks. As a result I find delight in every wild punch he throws that connects. I might as well enjoy life while shit burns down. Schadetrumpenfreude! He's not my guy, but he sure as hell pisses off all the right people.
7) I believe now, and have always believed the media are the enemy of the American people. I believed it long before he said it.
8) I hold progressive economic theories in deep contempt. Rapists and Keynesians are about equal in the harm they inflict on the innocent.
9) Without the media carrying their water the Democrats couldn't sell a chicken salad sandwich to a starving man with the necessary cash.
10) Hillary Clinton ought to be in a SuperMax facility.
11) I'm deeply disappointed that the new Ford Rangers are so damn complex and expensive. America needs a small, simple basic pick up truck for the masses. A 80's Toyota Hilux if you will.
 
Last edited:

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
13,548
Points
36
Damn straight we need a real pickup again. I still loved my older Dodge with a long bed and bench seat. I even had to roll down my own windows with a hand crank. If the truck can haul a sheet of plywood it ain't a truck. Although I'll give it up for the little Ranagers, Dakotas, and S-10s of the world that keep it simple.
 

giff57

Corn Burning Fool
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
5,397
Points
32
The best thing he dems could do is start passing bills that deal with the cost of healthcare, infrastructure and increases of funding to add Border Patrol agents, judges and the rest of the mechanism that vets incoming migrants. The economy needs those people and we need to be able to process them faster. The Senate will not let a dem sponsored bill through, but they need to start passing the bill that the citizens want and get off of all of the stuff the electorate could care less about. Unless the dems get their heads out of their asses Trump will get another term. We deserve better from both sides, and the two parties will continue to ensure that no other party gets a chance.

The older I get the more Libertarian I become. Now get off my lawn and leave me alone.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
14,693
Points
38
The older I get the more Libertarian I become. Now get off my lawn and leave me alone.
I think more people are labeling themselves as libertarian because it bridges the gap between D's and R's. It stays out of peoples personal rights (abortion, gay rights, etc.), but is fearful / doesn't want more big government. Libertarians generally were R's with D ideas, but I am seeing more and more D's not supporting the very progressive agenda of the Democratic Party.

2020 will be interesting. Joe is in, so will the D's pick him because of name recognition and Obama association? Will they go with a SUPER progressive angle like Sanders or Warren? Or will they go with a new guy like Buttigieg who would likely be the most "firsts" for a president ever.
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
26,726
Points
55
I think more people are labeling themselves as libertarian because it bridges the gap between D's and R's.
In my experience, the number of folks identifying as libertarian increased probably tenfold following Trump's election. Without exception, the converts formerly identified as R. YMMV
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,985
Points
29
I think more people are labeling themselves as libertarian because it bridges the gap between D's and R's. It stays out of peoples personal rights (abortion, gay rights, etc.), but is fearful / doesn't want more big government. Libertarians generally were R's with D ideas, but I am seeing more and more D's not supporting the very progressive agenda of the Democratic Party.

2020 will be interesting. Joe is in, so will the D's pick him because of name recognition and Obama association? Will they go with a SUPER progressive angle like Sanders or Warren? Or will they go with a new guy like Buttigieg who would likely be the most "firsts" for a president ever.
I actually have a little card that says I paid the Libertarians some money. They are not the most effective political party, so it was like pissing money away. I can't vote for economic fairytales so you won't see me casting a vote for a progressive. I'd vote for Rupal if she paired Chicago School economics with a belief in smaller government, non-interventionism and a post 14th Amendment due process/originalist view of the Constitution.
 

Richmond Jake

You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
Messages
18,264
Points
43
I just feel like a young man. I’m so young. I can’t believe it, I’m the youngest person — I am a young, vibrant man. I look at Joe. I don’t know about him. I don’t know.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,222
Points
42
When the el Guapos, michaelskis, and bubbas of the world aren't busy oppressing minorities and yearning for the return of Jefferson Davis (;)), they're occupied with thoughts of being principled conservatives.
Crap, you have me all figured out. Much like EG, I can’t follow the republic party because they too have abandoned the foundational beliefs that this country was founded on.

For me, I will base my decisions on two things, the Bible and Constitution Of The United States... in that order.
 
Last edited:

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,985
Points
29
Last week I spent about 12 hours over two days in a small room with 5 uniformed members of law enforcement, a retired sheriff, and one former prosecutor. Occassionally a district court judge would enter, search for a book, and then leave without a word.

Nope, I wasn't the one in trouble. Far from it.

With all sincerely I can assure you that I was by far the most liberal person in that room by at least 1.75 Berkeley Standard Wackadoodle Units. And, I consistently found myself arguing the liberal side of many of the day's issues. Rest assured those people left holding the exact opposite opinion the great throbbing brain of Cyburbia holds.
 

Bubba

Cyburbian
Messages
4,777
Points
28
Senate Elections 2020

David Perdue (r) is up for reelection (here in Georgia) to the Senate in 2020 - this could get interesting...and nasty. He's tolerated at best by the GOP rank and file (views generally range from lukewarm to he's an empty suit). The interesting part will be whether or not the state GOP leadership allows a true challenge to him in the primary. The nasty part could be the general (emphasis on could). Stacey Abrams is considering a run at it for the Dems, and she has the best statewide ground game I've ever seen here. But, she's damaging herself with her post-Gubernatorial actions, and (just personally) I think her skill set is better suited to take over for John Lewis in GA-4 (she'd be a great rep for that district for many years). And, now, Jon Ossoff (the greatest fundraiser ever in a House of Reps race) is considering a run for the Dems as well (just a couple of weeks after urging Abrams to run). Ossoff is a slick political chameleon - after running for GA 6 with a dual message (moderate to in-district audiences, hard left in out-of-state fundraisers), he tested the waters with a populist-toned speech yesterday to a small select group of Dems in a heavily red county in north Georgia. If either Abrams or Ossoff end up squaring off against Perdue (who I really hope gets primaried), it'll be weeks of negative ads and robocalls from both sides. Yay.
Abrams announced that she is not gong to challenge Perdue - the interview she gave the local fish wrapper afterwards makes it sounds like she'll only pursue an executive office (i.e running for Governor (again) or President (because there aren't enough D candidates already)).
 
Last edited:

Richmond Jake

You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
Messages
18,264
Points
43
I just received a text message inviting me to an upcoming tRump rally. The message listed the wrong city. :ha:
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
11,599
Points
35
I just received a text message inviting me to an upcoming tRump rally. The message listed the wrong city. :ha:
Calling Veloise! Calling Veloise!

Get the permits and bring the tRump Baby Balloon down to RJ-land. Good excuse for a Florida vacation.
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
13,548
Points
36
Staying off the national page for a minute, here is some local crazy.


Yep, our rep thinks the Pope is peddling socialist-tripe and should stick to bible-based theology. Um...I'm not religious expert, but I understand this Pope is a Franciscan and they basically dedicate their lives to following what Jesus did and taught more so than any others that I've seen. I don't think it gets more bible-based than that.

Oh yeah, this guy is a good Catholic.

Of course we can argue that this Pope is a little more invovled in politics than I think a religious leader should be, but maybe our politicians can take a little of the religion out of politics or maybe learn what the religion is about. Hint, they are all generally based on peace and love for all man kind and treating each other right.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
14,693
Points
38
Staying off the national page for a minute, here is some local crazy.


Yep, our rep thinks the Pope is peddling socialist-tripe and should stick to bible-based theology. Um...I'm not religious expert, but I understand this Pope is a Franciscan and they basically dedicate their lives to following what Jesus did and taught more so than any others that I've seen. I don't think it gets more bible-based than that.

Oh yeah, this guy is a good Catholic.

Of course we can argue that this Pope is a little more invovled in politics than I think a religious leader should be, but maybe our politicians can take a little of the religion out of politics or maybe learn what the religion is about. Hint, they are all generally based on peace and love for all man kind and treating each other right.
But the Pope isn't preaching a religion that doesn't care about the low, poor, or the immigrant, or says that you should be a rich person who doesn't care about anyone else. So it must be socialism.... :tired:
 

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
12,445
Points
39
Why is Rod Rosenstein's resignation not all over the news this week?
 
Last edited:

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
12,445
Points
39
It was until tRump puppet Barr had to answers some questions (& then decided they were too hard and bailed on day 2).
Yup.

After posting, I realized that this week's Trump/Barr Mueller Report crying sucked all the air out of the room.
 

JNA

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
24,574
Points
50
According to Gandhi, the seven sins are
wealth without works,
pleasure without conscience,
knowledge without character,
commerce without morality,
science without humanity,
worship without sacrifice, and
politics without principle.

Well, Hubert Humphrey may have sinned in the eyes of God, as we all do, but according to those definitions of Gandhi's, it was Hubert Humphrey without sin.
Jimmy Carter
 

JNA

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
24,574
Points
50
Unchurched election
Key support for Donald Trump came from evangelicals who don’t go to church

But weren’t evangelicals his key supporters during the crucial months in late 2015 and early 2016?
Here’s where some fascinating work by Timothy Carney in his new book, Alienated America (Harper, 2019), breaks down the data and exposes the mistake that has taken hold. Carney’s summary:
“The best way to describe Trump’s support in the Republican primaries—when he was running against the likes of Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich—

would be: white evangelicals who do not go to church.
 

Gedunker

Moderating
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,021
Points
34
I had hoped that America could wash away this wretched stain by a vigorous defeat of the administration in the fall 2020 general elections. While I fully hope that happens, I have concluded that impeachment is essential in the meantime. This president and his corrupt administration must be shown that America will not stand by and watch our national ideals sullied without a fight. Yes, I know a Republican Senate will never vote to convict, but impeachment matters if only to show that no one, not even a president, is above the law.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,985
Points
29
I had hoped that America could wash away this wretched stain by a vigorous defeat of the administration in the fall 2020 general elections. While I fully hope that happens, I have concluded that impeachment is essential in the meantime. This president and his corrupt administration must be shown that America will not stand by and watch our national ideals sullied without a fight. Yes, I know a Republican Senate will never vote to convict, but impeachment matters if only to show that no one, not even a president, is above the law.
Please go for it.
Go full throttle.
YOLO & No Ragrets!
 
Top Bottom