1 minute ago, The Norseman said:

Hell he even left the much of the Corona virus management up to State leadership. 

So we should thank Trump for getting the federal government out of the whole Corona debacle?

 

38 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

You're talking about court appointments, I'm talking about politics in general. 

I think it actually started under Clinton.  When Republican's investigated him for Whitewater and then came across the Lewinsky stuff they should have dropped it (as despicable as it was).  The environment since then has been downright toxic.  So, yes, in some ways Republicans started it.

However, democrats were absolutely awful to Bush, they raised the stakes substantially during those 8 years.  Republicans were obstructionist to Obama, agreed.  But, the environment under Trump has been nothing short of an adult tantrum by the Democrats.  Love him or hate him, he isn't going to give them an inch after the last four years.   

Ken Starr and the Whitewater investigation was a total sham. Trump can thank Democrats and Republicans both for recognizing how big a sham it was and putting specific guardrails in place that hedged against open-ended investigations of sitting presidents by special prosecutors. Mueller for example had a very strict mandate and a thin lane in which he was able to operate, which is why he had to refer many things he found to district courts for further investigation (which are still ongoing; this is where the fight over tax returns is being waged).

With Bush, in part what you saw was an angry constituency who saw the first president in over 100 years "win" the presidency while losing the popular vote, installed under some VERY questionable circumstances by a Supreme Court dominated by conservative justices. That said, a lot of the flack that Bush received was probably not as deserved as it should be, but let's not pretend that the circumstances were normal.

I'll also remind you that going back to 1992 - that's 28 years and 7 presidential elections - exactly ONE resulted in a popular vote win by a Republican. ONE ELECTION in seven, and that was 2004 when Kerry was "swift boated". 

The popular vote "does not matter" insofar as it's the electoral college that matters, but what you have now is a perversion of the original intent of the EC with a majority of the nation lacking the same level of representation at the national level as the minority for over a generation.

For over a generation now, between gerrymandering at the state level (yes Democrats have engaged in it, but for almost 40 years the practice has been dominated by Republicans), and rural preference awarded by the EC, the division of political power along the cultural divide has resulted in a situation where Democrats need to win by landslide margins nationally in order to get a slim majority of representation at the federal level. This includes the Presidency, where roughly a +4 advantage in the popular vote is necessary to win the White House for a Democrat, the Senate where it's more like +7, and yes (due to gerrymandering) the House where it's in the neighborhood of +2. 

How long do you think the Republicans can put their thumbs on the scales before people get fed up and start marching in the streets? Maybe 2020?

To be sure, I would not be surprised if the Democrats would be engaging in similar tactics if the system significantly advantaged them in the way it does the Republicans to try and maintain a grip on power. But that's not the situation, and it does not give Republicans the excuse to engage in the levels of voter suppression, gerrymandering, and unethical behavior at various levels of power to disenfranchise voters. 

Rather than change their platform to appeal to a broader electorate, for over a generation Republicans have doubled down on these tactics to help keep a grip on power. 

54 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

I get it, I'd feel the same way if I were on the other side.  Of course you have to win the election and take the Senate first. 

All that being said, the view in here that Democrats have been a bunch of lambs playing fair over the last four years is laughable. 

Point to me examples of the Democratic party engaging in the levels of unethical behavior that Republicans have.

There is an incredible difference in the degree and number of transgressions. Yes, plenty of Dems have acted poorly. That number is dwarfed by the Right.

4 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Is it, though? Won't the failed impeachment be considered precedent that it is acceptable behavior for a president to seek foreign help to win an election, so long as he deems his personal interests to be in service of national interests? I'm honestly asking. I'm not a legal scholar, but the only way I see extricating us from this danger is via a Constitutional amendment that specifically forbids it.

Impeachment is a political process, and there is no legal precedent in the Senate like there is in the SCOTUS.  And as we've seen, there's no such thing as a binding political precedent either. If you control the senate and you wanna break the law, go for it, but it's not a good look and you'll lose voters like myself in the process.

3 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

So we should thank Trump for getting the federal government out of the whole Corona debacle?

 

No, you should acknowledge that we live in a republic and not complain about Trump's federal overreach while at the same time complaining about not having a federal mask mandate. 

 

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Impeachment is a political process, and there is no legal precedent in the Senate like there is in the SCOTUS.  And as we've seen, there's no such thing as a binding political precedent either. If you control the senate and you wanna break the law, go for it, but it's not a good look and you'll lose voters like myself in the process.

My point is that no future president could be removed from office on grounds of soliciting foreign interference in an election, save a Constitutional amendment that makes it a clear violation. Impeachment is a political process but one that follows legal procedures. So, in the case of future impeachments, Trump's acquittal in 2020 makes those charges a nonstarter.

5 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

My point is that no future president could be removed from office on grounds of soliciting foreign interference in an election, save a Constitutional amendment that makes it a clear violation. Impeachment is a political process but one that follows legal procedures. So, in the case of future impeachments, Trump's acquittal in 2020 makes those charges a nonstarter.

Not if the other party controls the senate. And again, there's a political cost as well. Independents are tired of this crap. There's a reason why Biden gives the Dems a much better chance to unseat Trump than someone like Sanders.

8 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Not if the other party controls the senate. And again, there's a political cost as well. Independents are tired of this crap. There's a reason why Biden gives the Dems a much chance to unseat Trump than someone like Sanders.

I honestly don't think Trump payed (or will pay) much if any political price for the crimes he committed and was impeached for.  He'll lose because he's a loud mouthed idiot and because he sat back and focussed on reelection while hundreds of thousands of Americans died.

7 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

No, you should acknowledge that we live in a republic and not complain about Trump's federal overreach while at the same time complaining about not having a federal mask mandate. 

 

Please tell me you're not an anti-masker...

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

I honestly don't think Trump payed (or will pay) much if any political price for the crimes he committed and was impeached for.  He'll lose because he's a loud mouthed idiot and because he sat back and focussed on reelection while hundreds of thousands of Americans died.

Yeah, it's one reason of many for someone like Trump. But if Biden wins and starts breaking the law left and right, guess who won't be voting for him in '24?

8 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Please tell me you're not an anti-masker...

Yeah, it's one reason of many for someone like Trump. But if Biden wins and starts breaking the law left and right, guess who won't be voting for him in '24?

I don't think it's much of a concern with Biden.  He's not going to China and asking for election help or doing any of the other two-bit thug sheet that Trump's tried.  I think (hope) you'll see things pushed like DC and Puerto Rican statehood and even maybe breaking California up into 2 states to pack the Senate.  But those are legislative ends with precedent, not crimes.

3 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Point to me examples of the Democratic party engaging in the levels of unethical behavior that Republicans have.

There is an incredible difference in the degree and number of transgressions. Yes, plenty of Dems have acted poorly. That number is dwarfed by the Right.

Oh, I dunno.  How about lying to a FISA court to start an illegitimate investigation on a incoming president?  

I will say that Democrats are much smarter about their abuses of power and cover their tracks much better.  Trump's administration in particular has been really sloppy.  But this notion that this stuff isn't widespread on both sides is just ridiculous. 

14 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

No, you should acknowledge that we live in a republic and not complain about Trump's federal overreach while at the same time complaining about not having a federal mask mandate. 

 

I basically wear a mask whenever I leave the house, so a national mask mandate isn’t really much of an issue for me.

3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

I don't think it's much of a concern with Biden.  He's not going to China and asking for election help or doing any of the other two-bit thug sheet that Trump's tried.  I think (hope) you'll see things pushed like DC and Puerto Rican statehood and even maybe breaking California up into 2 states to pack the Senate.  But those are legislative ends with precedent, not crimes.

Of course not, but I thought this was a hypothetical scenario being posited.

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

I basically wear a mask whenever I leave the house, so a national mask mandate isn’t really much of an issue for me.

So do I, which pretty much proves my point.

3 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

So do I, which pretty much proves my point.

I don't go around licking people when I'm out it public, and I still wouldn't even if it were legal. But apparently, there are idiots that don't have the basic human decency to not go around licking people, and that's kind of a big problem given the current situation.

4 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

I basically wear a mask whenever I leave the house, so a national mask mandate isn’t really much of an issue for me.

pooseye

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I don't go around licking people when I'm out it public, and I still wouldn't even if it were legal. But apparently, there are idiots that don't have the basic human decency to not go around licking people, and that's kind of a big problem.

I don't understand your point.  So we need a federalized mandate to stop people from licking each other?

10 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

I basically wear a mask whenever I leave the house, so a national mask mandate isn’t really much of an issue for me.

Don't mistake my lame joke for being serious.  If masks are what is needed where you are then it is important that you wear one of course.

5 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

pooseye

I live on a college campus and they’re mandatory on campus.  Just doing my part, man.

Just now, DrPhilly said:

Don't mistake my lame joke for being serious.  If masks are what is needed where you are then it is important that you wear one of course.

I honestly feel bad when I forget.  White guilt.

2 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

I live on a college campus and they’re mandatory on campus.  Just doing my part, man.

As you should.  Nice campus too.  So are you actually living on it or near it?

5 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

I don't understand your point.  So we need a federalized mandate to stop people from licking each other?

If there are states that don't have laws against licking someone, then yeah, I wouldn't be opposed to a federal mandate. Once all states have laws forbidding licking someone else, than the federal mandate is pointless.

5 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

As you should.  Nice campus too.  So are you actually living on it or near it?

I actually live on campus. There’s a road on the south side of campus where some faculty and staff live.  It was the wife’s idea.

18 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Oh, I dunno.  How about lying to a FISA court to start an illegitimate investigation on a incoming president?  

I will say that Democrats are much smarter about their abuses of power and cover their tracks much better.  Trump's administration in particular has been really sloppy.  But this notion that this stuff isn't widespread on both sides is just ridiculous. 

"Democrats" lied to the FISA court?  No. FBI agents - some republican, some democrat, but not acting on behalf of a political party - were not always as forthcoming about details as they ought to have been for one person (Carter Page) who was under surveillance. That's it. That is the sum total of the argument from the right that the "Russia investigation" was some kind of political witch hunt. 

And I don't know how many times you have to be beaten over the head with this, but the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election had more than sufficient predicate. I do not disagree that there have been FISA abuses, but those abuses are not a partisan matter, as much as Republicans try to frame it as such. Even the Inspector General made no such case that the investigation itself was without merit.

The investigation was completely necessary. And they were not investigating Trump as a candidate nor as a president; they were investigating Russian meddling and *oops* some of the threads led back to people associated with the campaign. In some cases, like Page, those were incredibly brief associations, but investigators were following leads.

So no, that's a BS example. 

34 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Of course not, but I thought this was a hypothetical scenario being posited.

Oh, okay.  I kind of butted into that conversation.  

Along that vein though, Dems are pizzed right now and justifiably so.  It's all just further proof that there is no limit to Republican hypocrisy and no matter who's in charge, Republicans aren't interested in good governance/consistent ideology/helping the American people.  They only have one goal and it's to consolidate power.  Period.  No matter what the cost.  

Now how Democrats combat a party that serves no one but their own personal interest is yet to be seen, but the days of keeping things above board and hoping the other side follows your lead (ala Obama in 2016 when he decided not to force Garland in by recess appointment) are gone.  The Republicans want our government in the mud and now that's what they're going to get.  100%.  

That said, Dems have to be smarter than Republicans if for no other reason than the fact that their voters are smarter than Republican voters.  They can take measures to tilt things in their direction (admitting new states, etc.) while still staying on the right side of the law.  And that's the area where they should push back.