US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)

Biden

14 (66.7%)

Trump

7 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 21

Voting closed: November 02, 2020, 06:25:59 pm

[Alan Klein]

Obstruction of Justice was not charged when the Democrats in the House of Representatives impeached Trump even though they claimed for years that he was guilty of it.

[TechTalk]

I know he didn't. That was rather my point.

The question of his possibly "overturning the rule of law" depends on whether his commutation of the sentence was intra vires. I've not seen any suggestion that he couldn't (a legal or constitutional matter, as opposed to the moral shouldn't) have done what he did.

Jeremy

Naturally, none of these things are mutually exclusive, a person can engage in an action for which they have the proper authority (intra vires); engage in that action with the intent to commit a criminal or corrupt act (a legal or constitutional matter); which is also morally objectionable and shouldn't have been done.

[John Camp]

Most accusations about Trump are hype.  When you start looking at the facts, you find he hasn't done most of what people claim.  I presented a chart of his presidential orders that shows he's less ambitious about getting his way, much less than all other presidents for the last 120 years.  If you want to see who had fascist tendencies, look at Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt's numbers.  Now FDR was a guy who not only tried, but in fact did change America with his socialist fascist tendencies.

8-)

[John Camp]

I know he didn't. That was rather my point.

The question of his possibly "overturning the rule of law" depends on whether his commutation of the sentence was intra vires. I've not seen any suggestion that he couldn't (a legal or constitutional matter, as opposed to the moral shouldn't) have done what he did.

Jeremy

I don't believe that's necessarily so, at least, not in all cases. A person can do something for which he has legal authority, but it's nevertheless illegal if done for "wrong" or corrupt reasons. For example, an employer can fire an employee for being incompetent, but not for being old, or because he/she belongs to a racial or religious group. Then, what is normally a legal act becomes illegal -- the common formulation in the newspapers here is that you can fire somebody for any reason except a wrong one. If Trump commuted Stone's sentence because Stone refused to talk about Trump's crimes, that's a corrupt deal and would be illegal.

[James Clark]

8-)

Remember the original Star Trek series where Captain Kirk would destroy a computer by making it consider contradictory information? 

That's happening to Jeremy right this instant

[Alan Klein]

I don't believe that's necessarily so, at least, not in all cases. A person can do something for which he has legal authority, but it's nevertheless illegal if done for "wrong" or corrupt reasons. For example, an employer can fire an employee for being incompetent, but not for being old, or because he/she belongs to a racial or religious group. Then, what is normally a legal act becomes illegal -- the common formulation in the newspapers here is that you can fire somebody for any reason except a wrong one. If Trump commuted Stone's sentence because Stone refused to talk about Trump's crimes, that's a corrupt deal and would be illegal.

Mueller spent $30 million, interviewed hundreds, and subpoenaed hundreds more.  His conclusion was that  neither Trump, nor anyone in his campaign, in fact no one in America colluded or conspired with the Russians.  But somehow, you know that Stone is hiding something that Mueller could not find after two years of investigating and that Trump made a secret deal with him. 

You know it's simply that Trump after all these fake charges against him felt that his friend Stone was gone after for political reasons relating to the fake Russian charges and he didn't want his friend to spend the rest of his life in jail for a BS charge fabricated by Hillary Clinton dossier and corrupt officials in the Obama administration included the FBI and CIA who wanted to destroy the Trump administration.    The fact Trump did this now before the election with all the negative fallout and not afterwards, actually shows loyalty, something many people accuse him of not having. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Mueller spent $30 million, interviewed hundreds, and subpoenaed hundreds more.  His conclusion was that  neither Trump, nor anyone in his campaign, in fact no one in America colluded or conspired with the Russians.  But somehow, you know that Stone is hiding something that Mueller could not find after two years of investigating and that Trump made a secret deal with him. 

That's not at all what he concluded. I could find links to articles and podcasts about the subject, but I won't because you won't read or listen to them.

[Chris Kern]

Mueller spent $30 million, interviewed hundreds, and subpoenaed hundreds more.  His conclusion was that  neither Trump, nor anyone in his campaign, in fact no one in America colluded or conspired with the Russians.

Actually, Special Counsel Mueller and his staff concluded that the contacts they discovered between the Trump campaign and individuals connected to the Russian attempt to influence the election were insufficient to sustain a prosecution for criminal conspiracy.

The Office considered in particular whether contacts between Trump Campaign officials and Russia-linked individuals could trigger liability for the crime of conspiracy—either under statutes that have their own conspiracy language (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1951(a)), or under the general conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. § 371).  The investigation did not establish that the contacts [previously described in the report] amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law—including foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws . . .

     — Report, p. 181

However, the investigation concluded that some campaign officials did make false statements to federal investigators as well as engage in other attempts to obstruct justice.

[A]lthough the evidence of contacts between Campaign officials and Russia-affiliated individuals may not have been sufficient to establish or sustain criminal charges, several U.S. persons connected to the Campaign made false statements about those contacts and took other steps to obstruct the Office’s investigation and those of Congress.  This Office has therefore charged some of those individuals with making false statements and obstructing justice.

     — Report, p. 180

The second section of the report also enumerated a number of instances where Trump himself arguably attempted to obstruct justice—and included evidence that would have been more than sufficient to sustain an indictment of any other individual—but the Special Counsel declined to offer a conclusion regarding whether these constituted violations of criminal statutes because Department of Justice policy precludes charging an incumbent president with a federal crime.

[Alan Klein]

Actually, Special Counsel Mueller and his staff concluded that the contacts they discovered between the Trump campaign and individuals connected to the Russian attempt to influence the election were insufficient to sustain a prosecution for criminal conspiracy.

However, the investigation concluded that some campaign officials did make false statements to federal investigators as well as engage in other attempts to obstruct justice.

The second section of the report also enumerated a number of instances where Trump himself arguably attempted to obstruct justice—and included evidence that would have been more than sufficient to sustain an indictment of any other individual—but the Special Counsel declined to offer a conclusion regarding whether these constituted violations of criminal statutes because Department of Justice policy precludes charging an incumbent president with a federal crime.

In America, prosecutors like Mueller don't find people innocent. They find that the evidence does not reach a level where they can prove guilt     You guys will never believe Trump didn't conspire with the Russians even though Mueller said he didn't.  Re-arguing his conclusion is a waste of time.

[John Camp]

Trump announced in the Rose Garden that Biden would forbid buildings to have windows. I'm appalled by this, our windowless future. He said Biden's mandates would produce buildings that are hot in the summer, cold in the winter. The monster. Who knew, before the Glorious Leader revealed this plot? Free our windows!

[John Camp]

I went back and re-read my previous post. And more closely read a story about the Rose Garden event. I was mocking Trump, but seriously, the guy has gone 'round the bend; he's f*ckin' bonkers. Or as my redneck friends would say, crazier than a sh*thouse mouse. Will we make it to January without some enormous, historic tragedy, beyond even the Covid-19? I think that has to be a major concern now.

[Manoli]

Outlook looking good to better each day

Republican Voters Against Trump (RVAT), wants to boot Trump out of office later this year... a lifelong supporter of the Republican party, does she really want Biden to win? Lewell says she absolutely, unequivocally does.

“Donald Trump has a negative impact on the future of the Republican party,” says Lewell. “He has sort of hijacked it, and really poisoned the country, and has turned it into a nationalist populist party. There’s a section of Republicans who do not find that attractive, and I’m one of them.  The best thing for the party long term is for him to get defeated soundly, and for the party to rethink its direction.”

Then,

Joe Biden had no tougher opponent on the debate stage than Kamala Harris ... last week she threw him a fundraiser, on the same day that Elizabeth Warren, with whom Mr Biden also sparred, appeared at an event for him. Their enthusiasm for their one-time rival may not be simple partisan duty. A recent Monmouth poll put the two women first and second among Democratic primary voters’ vice-presidential preferences.

Elizabeth Warren ? If remotely true, it’s game on - you couldn’t give Trump a better present.  Hard to believe that the Dems haven’t learnt that a unified broadly centrist drive is required to boot the the orange donald out of office. Someone please tell me it’s not even a remote possibility.

[James Clark]

Outlook looking good to better each day

Then,

Elizabeth Warren ? If remotely true, it’s game on - you couldn’t give Trump a better present.  Hard to believe that the Dems haven’t learnt that a unified broadly centrist drive is required to boot the the orange donald out of office. Someone please tell me it’s not even a remote possibility.

I don't think it is, really.  In reality, she'd be a good choice from a policy perspective.  She's well-prepared and policy oriented in a way that's in tune with the progressive wing of the party in a way that Biden never will be. 

But you're right - politically she's a poor choice.   She's an easy target for the right to cry about "socialism" and an easy target for the progs to complain about POC voices being unheard again.  Harris is, in my opinion, the "political" choice and the best choice out there, although I've seen some quiet suggestions about Valerie Jarrett, which would be an inspired, if risky choice.

[John Camp]

I think Val Demings would be the right pick. Former police chief, two term representative, tough, articulate, black, female and ***popular in Florida.***

[faberryman]

Trump is at it again with the cognitive ability test. I thought he had pretty much maxed out on the subject with Chris Wallace on Sunday, but apparently there was more to say. Since not everyone subscribes to the New York Times, I'll give you a long quote:

“It was 30 to 35 questions,” Mr. Trump said. “The first questions are very easy. The last questions are much more difficult. Like a memory question. It’s, like, you’ll go: Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV. So they say, ‘Could you repeat that?’ So I said, ‘Yeah. It’s: Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.’”

“‘OK, that’s very good. If you get it in order you get extra points,’” Mr. Trump said a doctor told him. “OK, now he’s asking you other questions, other questions, and then, 10 minutes, 15, 20 minutes later they say, ‘Remember that first question — not the first — but the 10th question? Give us that again. Can you do that again?’”

“And you go: ‘Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV,’” Mr. Trump said. “If you get it in order, you get extra points.”

“They said nobody gets it in order,” Mr. Trump said. “It’s actually not that easy, but for me, it was easy. And that’s not an easy question. In other words, they ask it to you, they give you five names and you have to repeat ’em. And that’s OK. If you repeat ’em out of order, it’s OK, but, you know, it’s not as good. But when you go back about 20, 25 minutes later and they say go back to that — they don’t tell you this — ‘Go back to that question and repeat ’em, can you do it?’ And you go: ‘Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.’

“They say, ‘That’s amazing. How did you do that?’” Mr. Trump continued. “I do it because I have, like, a good memory, because I’m cognitively there. Now, Joe should take that test, because something’s going on. And, and, I say this with respect. I mean — going to probably happen to all of us, right? You know? It’s going to happen.”

Isn't obsessing over stuff an indicator of a mental impairment, or at least a personality disorder? I mean like when you went to the nursing home to visit your aunt and she kept telling you the same stories over and over again, didn't you just smile and nod, and when you got back in the car you just sat there for a minute with your hands on the steering wheel, sighed, and said to yourself: "Boy, she has really lost it." That's just what comes to mind for me.

So it looks like we have a choice in November: vote for a guy who can ace the test but can't stop talking about it, or vote for a guy who maybe doesn't get all the answers right the first time around, but otherwise seems to be a normal human being. Really, who do want taking that 3:00 am call, the guy who says "What's the problem?" or the guy that says "Hey, before we get started, I just want to tell you about this cognitive ability test I aced a couple of years ago. I'm really amazing." Wouldn't it be a shame if the missile reached New York before he finished his story?

Then there is this other question nagging at me: if Trump got extra points for getting the words in the correct order, why did he only score 30 out of 30? Seems like he should have gotten a 33 or something.

[Alan Klein]

Trump is at it again with the cognitive ability test. I thought he had pretty much maxed out on the subject with Chris Wallace on Sunday, but apparently there was more to say. Since not everyone subscribes to the New York Times, I'll give you a long quote:

Isn't obsessing over stuff an indicator of a mental impairment, or at least a personality disorder? I mean like when you went to the nursing home to visit your aunt and she kept telling you the same stories over and over again, didn't you just smile and nod, and when you got back in the car you just sat there for a minute with your hands on the steering wheel, sighed, and said to yourself: "Boy, she has really lost it." That's just what comes to mind for me.

So it looks like we have a choice in November: vote for a guy who can ace the test but can't stop talking about it, or vote for a guy who maybe doesn't get all the answers right the first time around, but otherwise seems to be a normal human being. Really, who do want taking that 3:00 am call, the guy who says "What's the problem?" or the guy that says "Hey, before we get started, I just want to tell you about this cognitive ability test I aced a couple of years ago. I'm really amazing."

Then there is this other question nagging at me: if Trump got extra points for getting the words in the correct order, why did he only score 30 out of 30? Seems like he should have gotten a 33 or something.

You'd be sensitive too if every day the leftist press called your intelligence and personality into question calling upon so-called psychologists to pass judgment from afar on his psychological makeup and intellect.  I haven't seen this much of those kind of attacks since Republicans Reagan in the 1980's and Ike before him in the 1950's.  Funny thing is it was the same media that attacked Regan and Ike on their supposed senility as an issue, something that Biden seems to be the one who's afflicted.  Of course Biden is their guy.  So they never bring it up. 

In any case, no one becomes a billionaire, runs 500 businesses, a real estate empire, a successful TV program, and becomes president of the US the first time out by being a dummy.  Although he's been divorced a couple of times, his children seem loving, integrated, happy and successful as well.   

[Peter McLennan]

You'd be sensitive too if every day the leftist press called your intelligence and personality into question calling upon so-called psychologists to pass judgment from afar on his psychological makeup and intellect.  I haven't seen this much of those kind of attacks since Republicans Reagan in the 1980's and Ike before him in the 1950's.  Funny thing is it was the same media that attacked Regan and Ike on their supposed senility as an issue, something that Biden seems to be the one who's afflicted.  Of course Biden is their guy.  So they never bring it up. 

In any case, no one becomes a billionaire, runs 500 businesses, a real estate empire, a successful TV program, and becomes president of the US the first time out by being a dummy.  Although he's been divorced a couple of times, his children seem loving, integrated, happy and successful as well.

Alan, read the book.  You might learn a few things about Mr Trump.

[Robert Roaldi]

You'd be sensitive too if every day the leftist press called your intelligence and personality into question calling upon so-called psychologists to pass judgment from afar on his psychological makeup and intellect.  I haven't seen this much of those kind of attacks since Republicans Reagan in the 1980's and Ike before him in the 1950's.  Funny thing is it was the same media that attacked Regan and Ike on their supposed senility as an issue, something that Biden seems to be the one who's afflicted.  Of course Biden is their guy.  So they never bring it up. 

In any case, no one becomes a billionaire, runs 500 businesses, a real estate empire, a successful TV program, and becomes president of the US the first time out by being a dummy.  Although he's been divorced a couple of times, his children seem loving, integrated, happy and successful as well.

Trump is sensitive? Are you trying to be ironic?

How do we KNOW he is a billionaire? All we have is his say-so. Why can't a successful billionaire get an American bank to talk to him anymore?

[Chris Kern]

Trump is sensitive?

He is extremely sensitive to the polls that show him shedding support among critical constituencies and in states crucial to his prospects for re-election, as well as to the howls from Republican Party senators that they are at risk of losing control of the Senate.  Hence his abrupt volte-face regarding wearing of facemasks and holding a large-scale Republican nominating convention in Florida, where the coronavirus numbers are figuratively and almost quite literally off-the-charts.

[PeterAit]

Trump is sensitive? Are you trying to be ironic?

How do we KNOW he is a billionaire? All we have is his say-so. Why can't a successful billionaire get an American bank to talk to him anymore?

Trump a great businessman? Nope--if he had invested his inheritance in the S&P 500 and then gone to sleep for 40 years, he'd now have more money than he claims to have--which is an almost surely inflated figure. Not to mention the bankruptcies--5 I think. If he's a great businessman, I am the Pope of Rome.