The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[Dddrees]

Yep, SSDD. This used to be an interesting thread to check frequently.

How long will some keep crawling back in the mud? We know who loves it, don't we???

Trump is after all still President.

 

[printcraft]

Trump is after all still President.

That has got to sting.

 

[Dddrees]

That's got to sting.

It does.

 

[jamil]

My apologies I was mistaken they didn't apologize.


However I stick with my opinion that his speech here was inappropriate. Tame for Trump, but still embarrassing.

Yeah. It would be better for politicians to have some sense of decency. But politicians will politic. That's not an excuse, it's a reason. They do it to further some political point they want to make. Obama stomped on the graves of dead children to further an anti-gun agenda that would not have saved any of those kids.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

No I don't remember the open mike incident. Actually open mike only comes to mind because I think at one point I may have heard something about it.

Here's a link, verified by Snopes. Google "Obama Medvedev open mic" and you'll see Youtube videos of the incident from all major news networks.

Obama Pledged 'More Flexibility' Toward Russia After 2012 Election

Well I doubt very much that I'll convince you of anything because I think your already aware of anything I might say.

Lot's of cr@p and inappropriate things. Throw in poor vetting of appointees (i.e. Flynn) and I agree. HOWEVER, not a cintilla of quid-pro-quo. Obama's open mic gaff was a clear "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." He sent a clear message that in exchange for Putin playing it "cool" during the election, not being a hothead that made the "reset button" look as stupid as it was, and making Romney seem Presidential in calling Russia our top adversary, that he would try to keep NUCLEAR MISSILE DEFENSE out of Europe. He ultimately reneged... but he still made the deal.

Back to Trump... plenty of shi%%y stuff, yup. But, no quid pro quo.

Regardless as an American I find the pretext of the meeting Trump Jr had with someone who supposedly had Russian Government connections to discuss dirt on a political opponent to be something we shouldn't stand for. I really don't care if this was taken by a Republican or Democrat. If Hilary's campaign did something with the Ukraine Govt then this too shouldn't be tolerated.


The Back channel thing with Jared and his connection with a Russian bank that is currently under sanctions sounds fishy to me as well.

The fact that the Trump Campaign and so many of those people actually worked for the Russians or foreign governments is also something in my opinion we should put a stop too. Free interprise is one thing, but these same folks whether Democrat or Republicans should be put a stop too. You should have the ability to work for whomever you want but if you wish to work for a foreign government then maybe we should no longer tolerate your involvement in our elections.

At this point I think their campaign may have just been more incompetent than anything else. They may actually have not done anything illegal but I'm very open to some of them becoming such.

Plenty unethical occurs in Washington... predated Trump... occurs under Trump... will happen after Trump. I'd probably agree with you that some of it should be illegal, but isn't now. But, ex post facto is one of the things we "left" England over, lol!

Trump on the other hand just doesn't get to decide certain things. Like whether or not he's going to be investigated. He is, and if there's a nothing burger so be it. But he doesn't get to determine that.

There is only one entity that has the un-impeded ability to investigate the President. That is Congress.

The President has the unambiguous power to fire the AG, the Deputy AG and any Special Prosecutor appointed by the DOJ, which falls under the Executive Branch. Whether it is wise or not is a political decision. I'd say that if Mueller sticks to his mandate, he shouldn't. If he goes on a fishing expedition as Special Prosecutors (and independent counsels, a la Starr) are wont to do, or drags the investigation out inordinately long, he should be fired.

 

[Dddrees]

Yeah. It would be better for politicians to have some sense of decency. But politicians will politic. That's not an excuse, it's a reason. They do it to further some political point they want to make. Obama stomped on the graves of dead children to further an anti-gun agenda that would not have saved any of those kids.

People are political by nature whether they're are politicians or not. Whether you believe Obama stomped on graves or he was motivated by a belief he already had he used a tragedy to make a point. You really could see this two different ways.

My issue with Trump is he just isn't decent. He's crude, rude, and he doesn't appear to have any morals or ethics.

Yes I do think it matters as to what approach you use. True, the approach you use maybe a front but at least we know how screwed up Trump really is because he doesn't seem to think it matters what people think. That too is another reason I find him abhorrent.

 

[Dddrees]

Here's a link, verified by Snopes. Google "Obama Medvedev open mic" and you'll see Youtube videos of the incident from all major news networks.

Obama Pledged 'More Flexibility' Toward Russia After 2012 Election



Lot's of cr@p and inappropriate things. Throw in poor vetting of appointees (i.e. Flynn) and I agree. HOWEVER, not a cintilla of quid-pro-quo. Obama's open mic gaff was a clear "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." He sent a clear message that in exchange for Putin playing it "cool" during the election, not being a hothead that made the "reset button" look as stupid as it was, and making Romney seem Presidential in calling Russia our top adversary, that he would try to keep NUCLEAR MISSILE DEFENSE out of Europe. He ultimately reneged... but he still made the deal.

Back to Trump... plenty of shi%%y stuff, yup. But, no quid pro quo.



Plenty unethical occurs in Washington... predated Trump... occurs under Trump... will happen after Trump. I'd probably agree with you that some of it should be illegal, but isn't now. But, ex post facto is one of the things we "left" England over, lol!



There is only one entity that has the un-impeded ability to investigate the President. That is Congress.

The President has the unambiguous power to fire the AG, the Deputy AG and any Special Prosecutor appointed by the DOJ, which falls under the Executive Branch. Whether it is wise or not is a political decision. I'd say that if Mueller sticks to his mandate, he shouldn't. If he goes on a fishing expedition as Special Prosecutors (and independent counsels, a la Starr) are wont to do, or drags the investigation out inordinately long, he should be fired.

Good points as usual sir.

I need and want to take more time to look at these later, but for now I need to get ready to go. Thanks for the very thoughtful response.

 

[jbombelli]

Well yippee, we got D***A** instead.

And a favorable Supreme Court justice. We'd have had a gun hater for sure the other way

 

[indiucky]

I just had to ask, but can you tell me how exactly you believe Trump is actually making America Great?

Everyone has their own definition of what "great" means so I will just tell you mine....He makes the establishment of both parties, the MSM, celebrities, pop stars and D.C. insiders heads explode....To me that's "great".....And as long as he keeps doing that I could care less about illegal immigration being down, pulling us out of the Paris Accord, TPP, or the stock market being up 17 points since his election.....While I am sure you can look at all of those things and say that is making America "great" to me it's more of a feeling of confidence I have gotten since his election that maybe, just maybe, we can beat our handlers in the media and stray "off the reservation" a bit from what NYC, L.A., D.C. and Chicago desire....

IMHO.....

 

[Dddrees]

Everyone has their own definition of what "great" means so I will just tell you mine....He makes the establishment of both parties, the MSM, celebrities, pop stars and D.C. insiders heads explode....To me that's "great".....And as long as he keeps doing that I could care less about illegal immigration being down, pulling us out of the Paris Accord, TPP, or the stock market being up 17 points since his election.....While I am sure you can look at all of those things and say that is making America "great" to me it's more of a feeling of confidence I have gotten since his election that maybe, just maybe, we can beat our handlers in the media and stray "off the reservation" a bit from what NYC, L.A., D.C. and Chicago desire....

IMHO.....

Thanks for responding. I don't get the same feeling because I don't see the need in this case. However I do get the feeling thing and this is what I think Reagan did mostly when he was President. But then again this was after the seventies.


Unfortunately it's those other things such as trade and the like where I think he's making us weaker.

 

[Dddrees]

And a favorable Supreme Court justice. We'd have had a gun hater for sure the other way

I know this is a gun forum and what I'm about to say is akin to heresy but guns aren't the only thing. There are other important things as well.

 

[printcraft]

I know this is a gun forum and what I'm about to say is akin to heresy but guns aren't the only thing. There are other important things as well.

Like free speech?

Did you know that the Second Amendment was originally the First Amendment.... pretty freaking important I would say.

 

[jamil]

I know this is a gun forum and what I'm about to say is akin to heresy but guns aren't the only thing.

No. It's not the only thing. I look at it in terms of direction, and how ****ed up the country has become. It's time to slam on the breaks. Yes. Having a guy like Trump running the country is a horrible price to pay for that. But the left has gone far beyond Overton's window.

I read some article the other day where the point was made that we were going to have a Trump. That was the inevitable conclusion to the leftward march of "social justice", identity politics, and so on. That we got THIS Trump is only a matter of opportunity. If it wasn't this guy it would have been whatever similar unconventional, populist figure. Interesting theory. Probably much of it is true.

 

[Dddrees]

Like free speech?

Did you know that the Second Amendment was originally the First Amendment.... pretty freaking important I would say.

Sorry, but I see free speech being more important. You wouldn't have it if you weren't capable of defending it, but somehow I see free speech much more dear.

 

[Birds Away]

Sorry, but I see free speech being more important. You wouldn't have it if you weren't capable of defending it, but somehow I see free speech much more dear.

It would be nice if one of your leaders on the left would stand up for it.

 

[Dddrees]

No. It's not the only thing. I look at it in terms of direction, and how ****ed up the country has become. It's time to slam on the breaks. Yes. Having a guy like Trump running the country is a horrible price to pay for that. But the left has gone far beyond Overton's window.

I read some article the other day where the point was made that we were going to have a Trump. That was the inevitable conclusion to the leftward march of "social justice", identity politics, and so on. That we got THIS Trump is only a matter of opportunity. If it wasn't this guy it would have been whatever similar unconventional, populist figure. Interesting theory. Probably much of it is true.

i've seen a number of those and they may be right. I just wish it weren't so,


Besides evrerytime somebody claims that somehow Hillary is the end to guns just hits 11 with me. Didn't happen under Obama can't see it happening under Hillary.

 

[Dddrees]

It would be nice if one of your leaders on the left would stand up for it.[/QUOTE

They aren't my leaders, but what the h***. Here's to someone on the left standing up for it.

 

[jamil]

Sorry, but I see free speech being more important. You wouldn't have it if you weren't capable of defending it, but somehow I see free speech much more dear.

Since we have to pigeonhole the entire political spectrum into just two holes, which side has campaigned the most to eliminate free speech? Which side is promoting "hate speech" laws, where "hate speech" can be defined as any speech the side in power doesn't like? In all these protests going on around the nation, Berkley, Portland, wherever, who stands on the side of free speech, and who stands on the side of limiting speech?

Which side stands with people who want to make criminals of law abiding gun owners? Which side stands with the people who want to eliminate the right to self-defense?

Free speech is vital to a free society. You can't have the latter without the former.

Another fundamental component of a free society is the right to self defense, the right to keep and bear arms. They both are integral to a truly free society.

Who stands most against both? If we have to pick just two sides, which side was Hillary on? Hmmm? Because those were the only two choices. Yeah. ***damn straight I'm voting to slam on the breaks of that nonsense. Even if I have to put up with what we have in the WH now.

 

[Dddrees]

Since we have to pigeonhole the entire political spectrum into just two holes, which side has campaigned the most to eliminate free speech? Which side is promoting "hate speech" laws, where "hate speech" can be defined as any speech the side in power doesn't like? In all these protests going on around the nation, Berkley, Portland, wherever, who stands on the side of free speech, and who stands on the side of limiting speech?

Which side stands with people who want to make criminals of law abiding gun owners? Which side stands with the people who want to eliminate the right to self-defense?

Free speech is vital to a free society. You can't have the latter without the former.

Another fundamental component of a free society is the right to self defense, the right to keep and bear arms. They both are integral to a truly free society.

Who stands most against both? If we have to pick just two sides, which side was Hillary on? Hmmm? Because those were the only two choices. Yeah. ***damn straight I'm voting to slam on the breaks of that nonsense. Even if I have to put up with what we have in the WH now.

For me my remark had nothing to do with politics. I just find free speech to be more dear.

 

[jamil]

i've seen a number of those and they may be right. I just wish it weren't so,


Besides evrerytime somebody claims that somehow Hillary is the end to guns just hits 11 with me. Didn't happen under Obama can't see it happening under Hillary.

Well. Let's unpack that. It didn't happen with Obama, but not because of Obama. He went after it very hard. It didn't happen despite the best efforts of Obama. And we can read the words of his first choice for AG, that "we" (the left) have to brainwash people to not want guns. That's the mindset we're dealing with. I'm not saying everyone on the left is a gun grabber, any more than I'd say everyone on the right is pro-gun. But they tend to choose the camps they choose. And if they're willing to indoctrinate people to achieve their political goals, I'm willing to take some pretty drastic measures like voting for a guy like Trump to slam on those breaks.