Is Donald Trump Done for?

[Berzerker]

I can understand more exec orders during a war but I'm surprised there were so many up to WWII, they've really dropped off. I wonder why

 

[Birdjaguar]

One of the interesting notes of the whole Trump investigation is that if Michael Cohen turns out to be the start of the collapse of Trump's defense, then Trump's demise can be traced back to his 2006 affair with Stormy Daniels. That affair and the payments, the cover up, and lawsuits brought Michael Cohen into the forefront with his connections to the family and Trump Organization. When you connect this back door into Trump dealings to the front door of Mike Flynn and Paul Manefort et al, you get a comprehensive look at a totally corrupted person who is now president of the US.

In the context of this thread there should be a clear crime identified... a clear definition of that crime OR they should be caught committing a crime like when Nixon broke into the watergate building... have a clear definition of 'criminal' not a vague but I know it when I see it''.At present people in general are saying ''ah ah what about the german money laundering aspect of getting Trump. They have at target 'Trump' after all he has bad hair, few people like him and now just need a crime. a perfect witch hunt like the old woman at the edge of town nobody likes... not to worry we will call her a witch, she must deserve it
No grudge... i enjoy your different perspective... you just had the best example of a crime that people will know it after it is discover Trump had a crime to go looking for

So you begin with a crime: foreign interference with US elections to disrupt the process and favor one candidate over another. Then you uncover evidence that those foreigners had help from inside the Trump campaign. Mueller is building a case step by step and in line with his very broad mandate; he has captured criminal activity outside of the original crime. He is being very careful and meticulous. He has not made a rush to judgment. Do you remember that it was a republican that choose him for the task and that his selection was only necessary because Trump fired the head of the FBI?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Do you remember that it was a republican that choose him for the task and that his selection was only necessary because Trump fired the head of the FBI?

More to the point, does @Old Hippy remember that Mueller himself is a life long Republican, who was appointed as head of the FBI by a Republican president? Or has he soaked so much Trumpist Kool-Aid into his brain that he's buying into the "if you aren't bending the knee and swearing loyalty to Trump then you must be a Democrat" nonsense that the Ministry of Propaganda is pumping out?

 

[Berzerker]

he has captured criminal activity outside of the original crime

and thats why Trump aint done for

I'm still not seeing why his 'crime' was so much worse than Hillary's, she paid Russian sources for dirt on Trump, and Trump requested the release of dirt on Hillary.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Muslim is not a race, it's a religion. And the ban was only on specific countries and on all their citizens, not on any single ethnic or religious group. It just got called the Muslim ban because Trump tried to market it that way and it backfired. I actually paid attention to that one.


Foreigner is not a race.

Funny how all the people he's seeking to ban just happen to have the same skin color.

Also to say nothing of this bizarre semantic end-around apologists want to play any time discussion of immigration pops up. Let's say for a second that this end-around successfully proves that these immigration bans were not undertaken with a racial animus, does that thereby render the act no longer morally reprehensible? Does it render his treatment of immigrants as no longer a human rights disaster? Does it render his motivation for these bans as no longer predicated on unfounded fearmongering? Even if you were to win this patently absurd semantic game, what did you win? What of substance has changed about his actions? Or how we are to perceive them?

Maybe "mexican" isn't a race, and maybe "Muslim" isn't a race. But Trump's immigration policy has, from the very outset, been constructed around an "us vs them" narrative. "They" are coming to rape and/or steal and/or murder "our" women. "They" are coming to sell drugs to "our" opioid-addicted children. "They" are coming to take "our" jobs and depress "our" wages. "They" are coming to exploit systems originally set up to benefit "us". Maybe the "they" isn't a race, but I'd say it's pretty undeniable who the "us" is referring to in Trump's speeches.

and thats why Trump aint done for

I'm still not seeing why his 'crime' was so much worse than Hillary's, she paid Russian sources for dirt on Trump, and Trump requested the release of dirt on Hillary.

This is such a laughable mischaracterization of something which has been emphatically and repeatedly explained to you.

 

[Hrothbern]

That is a very interesting way to look at it. But I do not really understand why you would come to that conclusion.

Democracy is a system of government that springs up as a response to oppressive governments and is designed to make the government accountable to the people by giving said people a means to perform a bloodless and effective revolution. And that is what elections are, an institutionalized bloodless form of revolution. The whole system is designed around ensuring that if a government ever becomes unpopular with the people it can be removed by said people cleanly and efficiently.

And therefore that is indeed all it takes to get into power and stay in power. Remain popular. In some cases this means you do things the people want you to and in others you just being the richest guy that can pay for the loudest propaganda machine. But it is newer your means that are judged, just your popularity.

I try to explain
Stability and continuity of policies of a country have as much a value as the opinion of the moment, of the people of that moment and at that moment.
Polarised flipflopping laws every time your government changes from Red to Blue is imo a primitive and wastefull/confusing way to be "democratic".

Normally a country has a set of systems that give inertia to the policies in a glided scale, all controlled by the vote of the people.
Inertia delivers that the votes of the same "people" in earlier elections or votes, are still of value, generate a kind of barrier in time, for sudden changes.
Every country does it in a bit other way, so I take my country as example, where BTW there is for both Chambers and the Provinces a multiparty system, popular representional democracy.

There is the Law and Politics.
The Law is separated in the Constitution and normal Laws. The national Politics is separated in the Second Chamber and First Chamber.
The Constitution has the highest inertia, needs to pass both chambers, and needs a higher qualified majority than normal Laws. => a bigger broader consensus is needed.
The normal Laws need need a normal majority in both chambers. Hereby the second chamber is the lawmaking chamber, and the first chamber has veto right.
Laws are very well scrutinised in consistency effects on existing laws. Meaning that a rogue law (hype from the moment) in conflict with other existing laws can only pass when all laws are changed/made consistent with each other.

The Second Chamber, lawmaking,control on cabinet, is most volatile, and most directly connected to the voice of the people and the attention of the news media. Every 4 years election including formation of a new cabinet with a PM.
The first Chamber, vetoright on Laws, has also every 4 years election, and is usually out of phase with the Second Chamber election, securing that "hype of the moment" effects of the will of the people do not coincide for both Chambers.
It has very much the character from elder statesman, and the election campaign together with the Provincial elections, is by tradition not much influenced by the heavyweight politicians of the Second Chamber and the Cabinet. People vote for the political parties as a whole, for their poltical programs. The First Chamber is also in general much more concerned with the future societal development and future societal effects of Laws than the Cabinet and Second Chamber.

All in all:
A system of inertia to protect the opinions of people (votes) of the past, to take in account future generations, against too abrupt changes or too much selfisness of the hype of the moment.
If the peoples opinion on a certain topic needing relatively big changes is strong and persistent enough over time, all the treshold will be taken subsequently and the change is made.

Another tradition of our "inertia" system is to be slow with some formal laws (like visibly on abortion, euthanasy or drugs) by allowing a rather long period where such practices are "tolerated" including governmental funding for activities that are formally outlawed.
A deliberate lagging lawmaking, to increase the chance that we only change major things when the change in the mindset of the people are indeed persistent and societal consensus is broad enough.
IF for example the abortus issue would have been handled by a referendum in the 70-80ies, and would have gained that 50% + 1 vote, or some qualified majority, I am convinced that thart referendum (for Dutch circumstances) would have more of a polarising effect, and WE do not want destructive polarising, WE want societal cohesion.

All in all explaned:
Prudent inertia with everywhere consensus, focus on lasting societal cohesion, on cohesion between older and younger generations, and the people have always the last word.

Prudency and patience are much more a virtue than instant consumerism of politics.

 

[Berzerker]

The muslim ban was limited to several countries deemed security risks for lax traveling procedures under Obama and Trump, but I think Trump did call for a total muslim ban, so in either case the banned populations dont have the same skin color.

 

[Ajidica]

The muslim ban was limited to several countries deemed security risks for lax traveling procedures under Obama and Trump, but I think Trump did call for a total muslim ban, so in either case the banned populations dont have the same skin color.

Yet, somehow, South Sudan was not included - a country in the midst of a brutal civil war that has never had a functioning government. I somehow doubt that they are able to provide robust travel security procedures.
Plus, the inclusion of North Korea is random. It isn't like there are that many people from Best Korea traveling to America anyhow, and those that are visiting us are almost certainly coming over on diplomatic visas to the UN which we are obligated to respect.

 

[schlaufuchs]

The muslim ban was limited to several countries deemed security risks for lax traveling procedures under Obama and Trump, but I think Trump did call for a total muslim ban, so in either case the banned populations dont have the same skin color.

North Korea was added to the list after his first version was thrown out for being blatantly and exclusively discriminatory against Muslims of a certain skin tone.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Do you remember that it was a republican that choose him for the task and that his selection was only necessary because Trump fired the head of the FBI?

More to the point, does @Old Hippy remember that Mueller himself is a life long Republican,

And add to that that special counsels have generally been drawn from the opposing party, so Trump has already been favored by getting one from and appointed by his own party.

 

[Hygro]

many liberals seem to hate Trump so much mainly because

1) he, by his very existence, explodes the meritocracy myth around which they organize their understanding of the world

2) he doesn't bother putting a genial cloak over the naked brutality of the American empire and political system

The fact is that Trump is continuity with what came before. "This isn't the America I know!" is always funny to me because it totally is the America I know.

First, great chart. Second, well put and third: these two reasons are some of the very few things I like about our president.

How so? Has he not succeeded in becoming president on his own personal merit in the field of making people like him?
That is after all the one and only type of qualification democracy demands.

Lexicus is describing an understanding that many (other) people have of "our existing meritocracy" and how Trump disrupts that order. That order is a large social institution that claims the mantel of meritocracy regardless of a fuller understanding of merits.

 

[Berzerker]

This is such a laughable mischaracterization of something which has been emphatically and repeatedly explained to you.

that wasn't my characterization of your argument (what is your argument?), thats my interpretation of the data

"I'm still not seeing why his 'crime' was so much worse than Hillary's, she paid Russian sources for dirt on Trump, and Trump requested the release of dirt on Hillary."

What have I gotten wrong?

 

[Birdjaguar]

that wasn't my characterization of your argument (what is your argument?), thats my interpretation of the data

"I'm still not seeing why his 'crime' was so much worse than Hillary's, she paid Russian sources for dirt on Trump, and Trump requested the release of dirt on Hillary."

What have I gotten wrong?

Are you saying that Hillary actually paid money to Russians?

 

[metalhead]

that wasn't my characterization of your argument (what is your argument?), thats my interpretation of the data

"I'm still not seeing why his 'crime' was so much worse than Hillary's, she paid Russian sources for dirt on Trump, and Trump requested the release of dirt on Hillary."

What have I gotten wrong?

Hillary's actions don't constitute a crime, while Donald Trump's might. The actions of his subordinates are definitely crimes. Hillary's campaign subordinates did not commit crimes.

Paying for dirt is not a crime. Participating in a conspiracy to hack computers and/or to attack U.S. election infrastructure is a crime.

 

[Berzerker]

Are you saying that Hillary actually paid money to Russians?

Of course, her campaign funded Steele's effort to get dirt from his Russian connections. I presume that included money for information. Isn't that how we found out about the allegation Trump paid prostitutes to pee on the bed Obama used on a visit (or something like that)? The irony is the dirt on Hillary was their own words in emails whereas God only knows what dubious sources were selling their dirt to Hillary. I think what she did was slimy.

Hillary's actions don't constitute a crime, while Donald Trump's might. The actions of his subordinates are definitely crimes. Hillary's campaign subordinates did not commit crimes.

Paying for dirt is not a crime. Participating in a conspiracy to hack computers and/or to attack U.S. election infrastructure is a crime.

Paying for dirt is not a crime but asking someone to expose dirt is? Can you cite the statute making that distinction? I haven't seen any evidence Trump participated in a hacking of computers or attacking the election.

"he has captured criminal activity outside of the original crime" - Birdjaguar

Nobody in Trump's campaign has been convicted of collusion, people are getting in trouble for lying about it. Well, Manafort and Flynn have their own issues too and I hope both of them end up in jail. LOCK THEM UP!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The irony is the dirt on Hillary was their own words in emails whereas God only knows what dubious sources were selling their dirt to Hillary.

It's hilarious that you have been told so many times about the key difference that you actually acknowledge it...while ignoring it.

 

[metalhead]

Paying for dirt is not a crime but asking someone to expose dirt is?

That's not the issue here. The issue is that the Trump campaign benefitted from illegally hacked emails

I haven't seen any evidence Trump participated in a hacking of computers or attacking the election.

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."

As the leader of an enterprise (the Trump campaign) that participated in several computer crimes and potentially electoral attacks or fraud, Trump himself could be criminally prosecuted under RICO. He doesn't have to have personally participated.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Of course, her campaign funded Steele's effort to get dirt from his Russian connections. I presume that included money for information. Isn't that how we found out about the allegation Trump paid prostitutes to pee on the bed Obama used on a visit (or something like that)? The irony is the dirt on Hillary was their own words in emails whereas God only knows what dubious sources were selling their dirt to Hillary. I think what she did was slimy.

Here is the dossier timeline:

• In October 2015, the Washington Free beacon (conservative, never trump, website) hired the private investigative firm Fusion GPS to provide political opposition research against Trump.
• In March of 2016 Fusion approached Marc Elias to see if the Dems wanted them to do opposition research on Trump.
• In April 2016, attorney Marc Elias separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump on behalf of Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC.
• When Trump became the Republican nominee in May, the Free Beacon stopped paying Fusion GPS.
• So in April and May of 2016 Fusion GPS was researching Trump on behalf of both parties.
• In June 2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele's firm to compile a dossier. Steele's instructions from Fusion were to seek answers to why Trump would "repeatedly seek to do deals in Russia.
• Clinton campaign officials were unaware that Fusion GPS had subcontracted Steele, and Steele was not told that the Clinton campaign was the recipient of his research.
• The Dems paid Fusion $1.02 Million of which $168,000 went to Steele. There is no record of Steele paying for any of his information (ie Russians)
• Because he felt that Trump was being blackmailed by Russia, Steele contacted both US and British intelligence services beginning in July 2016.
• Following Trump's election as president, funding from Clinton and the DNC to Fusion GPS stopped, but Steele continued his research and was paid directly by Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn R. Simpson. The completed dossier was then handed to British and American intelligence services.

 

[FriendlyFire]

It's hilarious that you have been told so many times about the key difference that you actually acknowledge it...while ignoring it.

UK is an Ally of the US
RUSSIA is an enemy of the US

Steele Passed Intell onto the FBI
Trump Lying and covering up Russian contacts to the FBI

I suspect Berzerk voted for Trump and is in the process of rationalising it as a vote against the Evil Hillary. Dont worry berzerker plenty of Republicans are probably having the same regrets

 

[Timsup2nothin]

UK is an Ally of the US
RUSSIA is an enemy of the US

Steele Passed Intell onto the FBI
Trump Lying and covering up Russian contacts to the FBI

I suspect Berzerk voted for Trump and is in the process of rationalising it as a vote against the Evil Hillary. Dont worry berzerker plenty of Republicans are probably having the same regrets

The critical difference is actually that the "dirt in their own words" Berzerker referred to is, as has been pointed out to him many times, illegally acquired. It doesn't matter so much which hands it passed through along the way, it's that it was obviously stolen goods. That's what makes the Trump campaign's actions illegal, and @Berzerker has had that pointed out innumerable times...to the point where he just blithely says "in their own words" as if that makes it "better oppo," while continuing to do the fingers in the ears LALALALA and pretend he just doesn't see the difference.