from the the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
The view among the national security officials was unanimous: Military aid to Ukraine should not be stopped. But the White House's acting chief of staff thought otherwise.
That was the testimony of Laura Cooper, a Defense Department official, whose deposition was released Monday in the House impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump.
"My sense is that all of the senior leaders of the US national security departments and agencies were all unified in their - in their view that this assistance was essential," she said. "And they were trying to find ways to engage the president on this."
Cooper's testimony was among several hundred pages of transcripts released Monday, along with those of State Department officials Catherine Croft and Christopher Anderson.
Cooper told investigators that, in a series of July meetings at the White House, she came to understand that Trump's acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, was holding up the military aid for the US ally.
[...] When she and others tried to get an explanation, they found none.
[...] She said it was "unusual" to have congressional funds suddenly halted that way, and aides raised concerns about the legality of it. The Pentagon was "concerned" about the hold-up of funds and "any signal that we would send to Ukraine about a wavering in our commitment", she said.
Cooper told investigators that she was visited in August by Kurt Volker, the US special envoy to Ukraine, who explained there was a "statement" that the Ukraine government could make to get the security money flowing.
[...] "Somehow, an effort that he was engaged in to see if there was a statement that the government of Ukraine would make," said Cooper, an assistant defence secretary, "that would somehow disavow any interference in US elections and would commit to the prosecution of any individuals involved in election interference."
For a handy reference to the documents that have been released concerning this, npr has posted Trump Impeachment Inquiry: A Guide To Key People, Facts And Documents:
Written words are central to the Ukraine affair. The significance of the whistleblower's original complaint and the White House's record of its call with Ukraine are debated, but the text is public. Here are the documents to refer to as the inquiry proceeds:
Texts and memos
- Call:The White House memorandum (Sept. 25)
- Aid:The Pentagon letter on military aid to Ukraine (Sept. 25)
- Complaint:The whistleblower complaint (Sept. 26)
- Texts:Batch of texts between diplomats released by House Democrats (Oct. 4)
The whistleblower's complaint has largely been corroborated by witness testimony, public statements and media reports. See how the document checks out — with a detailed annotation of the text.
Testimony released by Congress following closed depositions
- Christopher Anderson, former special adviser for Ukraine negotiations
- Laura Cooper,deputy defense secretary
- Catherine Croft, former Ukraine adviser on the National Security Council
- Fiona Hill, former White House adviser on Russia
- George Kent, deputy assistant secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs
- Michael McKinley, former State Department adviser
- Gordon Sondland,U.S. ambassador to EU
- William Taylor, acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine
- Alexander Vindman, top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council
- Kurt Volker, former Ukraine envoy
- Marie Yovanovitch, ex-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Snow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @09:52PM (9 children)
Withholding the money (ie. quid) means there was no quid in the pro. The quo is therefore good.
It was a tremendous phone call. Very good. Everyone said it was good. Just read the transcript. No QUID no QUO!
I hope he ends up in jail...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:50AM (7 children)
Whether Trump goes to jail or not is sort of beside the point for me. What would actually interest me is a real accounting of what/who all the money we send around the world is spent on. I'd like to know how much gets funneled back into the pockets of politicians and their families, either directly or indirectly by freeing up money sourced elsewhere to go into the pockets of our rulers, family and friends.
Because I'm a nobody, I actually have to work for a living -- nobody is out there giving me a no-show 80k/month job -- how much of the money that gets shoveled into the pockets of those in and around high government officials, comes directly or indirectly from the blood, sweat and tears American peon taxpayers shed?
So yeah, Trump may be a dick and all, and explain to me -- without copping out on "whatabout" -- why I shouldn't be pissed about the whole fucking lot of them? Why should I care if they tear down Trump just to elevate their own greedy-ass selves?
(Score: 5, Informative) by https on Wednesday November 13 2019, @02:36AM
A reasonable first estimate [amazon.ca] is thirty percent [youtube.com]. Good luck with the specifics, as the entire reason this bullshit goes on is because it's easy for targeted officials to claim "national security" after they're bribed.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 1, Troll) by legont on Wednesday November 13 2019, @05:29AM (1 child)
First Ukraine bribed Clinton and got a ... "new government" and a war with rebels. Then Ukraine bribed Biden and got the US help canceled. Then it got murky.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Informative) by legont on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:43AM
Ukraine is on the top of the list - the biggest contributor to Clinton's ever..
Warning - paywall https://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-charity-tapped-foreign-friends-1426818602 [wsj.com]
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @04:26PM (3 children)
In the first paragraph hemocyanin engages in a "whatabout" by speculating, without evidence, that other politicians are corruptly funneling tax payer money to themselves, their friends, and their relatives, and wonders to what extent this is happening. hemocyanin continues this in the second paragraph, while also making an oblique, but obvious, reference to Hunter Biden. By the third paragraph, hemocynanin has dropped the hypothetical nature of the first and second paragraphs to assume this corruption is actively occurring, and demands an explanation with the condition that the reply not engage in the same kind of fallacy he himself engaged in.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday November 13 2019, @04:55PM (2 children)
Let me engage in "whateverism". I wasn't saying I was not saying "whatabout" -- I was saying lay off the "whatabout" deflection because it's about freakin' time we ask whatabout. As in, what about due process free execution? Why is that not impeachable? What about starting a war without Congressional approval. Why is that not impeachable? What about excusing torture. Why is that not impeachable? What about mass surveillance. Why is that not impeachable? What about bailing out banksters and never prosecuting the financial crimes that destroyed so many people? Why all that not impeachable? Why is the only thing that is impeachable, is looking to dig up dirt on Biden's obvious corruption?
Because the ONLY crimes that matter to the DNC, are those which impinge on its ability to be corrupt apparently. They sat on their thumbs through Bush and Obama when incredibly cynical hard Constitutional violations proliferated, and said not a word, unless it was to participate in that rot and celebrate: "we came we saw he died" or "the son should have had a better father."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @09:04PM (1 child)
This is a good point and I don't think it is lost on anyone here. The vast majority of people are fed up with the lack of accountability and insane levels of corruption.
However, we don't need your whataboutism concerns in a discussion about Trump. You can being those points up, but they should be IN ADDITION and not phrased as "bbbut those eeeevuhl demonrsts!!"
All the more liberal users around here regularly criticize Obama and others who failed the public good, yet conservatices just can't let go of their tribal loyalty.
Try again when you're ready to say Trump should at least be removed from office, and preferably prosecuted properly for his crimes.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:07AM
I'll be all aboard the Trump impeachment train just as soon as the mass indictments start flowing, because otherwise, all Trump impeachment can possibly do is elevate other -- often worse -- corruption.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday November 13 2019, @05:59PM
Dies in jail. Penniless and alone.
It won't happen. But I can dream.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:00PM (9 children)
Lemme guess, had Trump intensified the involvement in Ukraine, the old flags with the peace symbol would have been dusted off.
Pawn of the ussr yay, pawn of the Russia nay.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:36PM (1 child)
Lol, it is so obvious at this point. Guess "I was wrong" is a foreign concept to you.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday November 13 2019, @10:00AM
Given that I had defined Trump as berlusconi II...
Account abandoned.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 13 2019, @12:19AM (6 children)
"Help my political campaign, and I'll make sure you get paid" is probably still a crime.
"The president can do whatever he likes, because he is above the law" might turn out to be a successful defense, but it is still a stupid way to run a country.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by qzm on Wednesday November 13 2019, @07:22AM (5 children)
However, "I would appreciate it if you would restart this investigation that you stopped after pressure from the US" is probably not.
If there was ANY sign that Trump tried to pressure them for a specific OUTCOME that would be quite different, however asking a country to INVESTIGATE something is entirely legit.
In the same was asking US agencies to INVESTIGATE something is legit, as long as you dont pressure them about the outcome.
Or do you think the investigations of Trump should have resulted in Obama being prosecuted?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:28PM
And it was so legit that he felt the need to construct a parallel shadow state department to ensure it stayed out in the open and wasn't misconstrued as shady.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:17PM
George Kent's opening statement before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (see second bullet point on page 4) [cnn.com] seems most apropos to address your concern.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 13 2019, @07:44PM (1 child)
He asked them to publicly announce an investigation in return for MY money.
That alone would harm the Biden campaign.
He understands that's how Comey won it for him in 2016.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday November 13 2019, @08:25PM
And MY money too. I'd really like to believe I wasn't funding Biden's coke habit.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 13 2019, @08:08PM
Oh, is that the current defense?
Sounds pretty weak to me, not that it will matter as the Republicans have no interest in responsible government any more, they just want power at any cost now, so no repercussions for Mr. Trump.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:01PM (54 children)
They want to bring back the good old days of quiet and ladylike corruption
It used to be that the CIA NSA FBI were evil tools of the empire. Why are they regarded as patriots and heroes now?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:07PM (52 children)
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
There are many of us looking at the insanity going down in the US of A. Your president is a nut-bar. When some agency does something to try bring him back in line, it feels right.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:22PM (15 children)
You are not in the USA. You're a snow-mexican. You voted an actor into power, something we haven't done since Reagan. (but Reagan gave a damn about his own country)
Being non-USA, your opinion on our wonderful president doesn't matter. If you were from a worse country, a negative opinion would be a bonus.
Unless you are a dairy farmer, you ought to like Trump. He tried to get you affordable dairy products.
It's sad that your country is rapidly going in a bad direction. Try not to go all islamist on us, eh? (for the unaware, Canada is rapidly importing people with 3rd-world values and there is no magic dirt to make them assimilate to traditional Canadian values -- but at least Snow will get polygamy)
The very idea that putting one's own country first is "nut-bar" shows just how far you've fallen. Your culture is going extinct, and you are cheering. All that leftist stuff will one day be gone, replaced by a Caliphate that chucks LGBT from rooftops and stones uncovered women to death.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:35PM (4 children)
Your dairy products are shit. A direct result of intensive lobbying by the industry. Canadian dairy is held to a higher standard with regards to hormones and white blood cell count (an indicator on the heath of the cow).
Ironically, your example of Trump helping Canadians is symbolic of what is wrong with your country at the moment. Trump (and the Republicans) seem to believe that there is nothing better than money. Environment? Fuck it. I want more money. Social support nets? Fuck it. I don't want to pay for it. etc.
The short slightedness of the states is disheartening. The current administration can't seem to think about tomorrow, let alone next decade. Your country is losing face. You standing on the world stage has taken a huge fall. Most of the world used to look up to the USA. That's not the case at the moment. It's really sad to see. I hope you can sort your shit out.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:15PM
If you think Canadian dairy is so great, then of course nobody would buy the American dairy. You have no need to exclude it from the market. Why bother, when it won't sell?
On the other hand, if that isn't correct, then why are you telling people they can't have dairy they can afford? People are watering down milk for their kids. People are substituting soy, which has hormonal and inflammatory effects.
Lots of Canadians are voting with their feet. You have a brain drain because productive people want out. They really don't want to pay for socialism, though I guess they can't vote after they leave so you win! You win the impoverished remains all to yourself.
You don't think about the next decade. If you did, you'd notice the ongoing population replacement. Your system of values will die. Assimilation is not happening. The immigrants might not be Christians, but the enemy of your enemy is not your friend. Wait... do you think that Islam is right about women?
Why would an American give a shit about "losing face", "standing on the world stage", and other globalist garbage? None of that helps us win bigly. We gain nothing from kissing your ass.
Grow some balls. Elect somebody who doesn't just act the part. Bonus points if his "eyebrow" (stage makeup) doesn't fall off, LOL.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:33PM (2 children)
I've also noted that the last two times we elected an R, we lost face in the international arena.
Its almost like Rs suck an international policy.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @02:15PM
I think you could leave it at every time we've elected a president in the past 4 decades or so we've lost face in the international arena. I think you're probably being overly influenced by media partisanship. Just look at Obama's presidency:
- North Korea became for more threatening, hostile, and capable.
- Bombed more nations than any president since WW2
- Started a new pointless proxy war, which we're losing, in Syria
- Fostered the emergence of ISIS and then flailed uselessly against them.
- Promised to shut down Guantanamo. It's still open. [If he want to believe he wasn't capable of acting, then he should not make promises he cannot possibly keep - same issue.]
- Passed laws regressing human and civil rights in America by decades. For instance his administration lobbed to ensure an indefinite detention law [wikipedia.org] (without charge, trial, or lawyer) could also be assayed upon US citizens.
- His "landmark environmental treaty" (as framed by the media) with China essentially said 'Feel free to pollute as you much until 2030, but then try to town it down.'
- Not only chose not to pursue justice against international bankers who crashed the world economy, but would then go on to accept $400k for 30 minute speeches from them after his presidency, repeatedly.
- And much much more. This isn't some copy paste list - this is just stuff off the top of my head in about 30 seconds of thought.
Obama is not a good person and was not a good president. The big difference between him and other presidents is that he is also unbelievably charismatic and has an incredible gift for speech. Beyond that charisma he was also the first democratic president to win the presidency since the media started becoming, defacto, little more than a branch of the DNC. Both of this combined together to create a situation where his image and charisma were given far more weight than his actual outcomes.
No need to compare him to e.g. Bush. I'd fully agree that Bush was also awful, as well as Clinton. My point is that all of our representatives have become crap. The only issue is that the ~25% of the country that votes democrats puts on the blinders for a D while the other ~25% put on their blinders for an R.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @09:27PM
If you don't "lose face", you're almost certainly screwing up.
The objective is to win, putting America first. That is fundamentally incompatible with your emasculated notion of what it means to lose face.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:02PM (7 children)
What the hell is this garbage about "magic dirt". I seem to recall that it cropped up in the comments about a sawzall defeating Trump's tremendously bigly beautiful wall. So, where is this coming from? You wouldn't happen to be one of those "blood and soil" types, would you?
Uh huh. So, just what do you think are the essentials of my culture? Go ahead and enlighten me. I dare you!!!!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @12:58AM (6 children)
It's a term invented by the right. It mocks an assumption made by the left.
The left welcomes immigration from places with very non-left values. (no rights for women, kill the LGBT, etc.)
The left likes to claim that these very non-left values will not be a problem. Diversity is a strength! We must not dare demand assimilation, yet somehow these immigrants will become enlightened and then willingly adopt our values.
It's crazy. Evidence shows that our values are not being adopted. We're being conquered. The idea that transplanting a foreigner to a modern nation would suddenly change values (why?) is the magic dirt theory. The theory goes that western nations are decent places simply due to location (the magic dirt) rather than due to the population that is being diluted and replaced.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:21AM (1 child)
You could improve our values by leaving.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @04:59AM
And where is a right-wing fascist racist douche-bag supposed to go to, these days? South Africa is out. Franco is still dead. Zanzibar coup by Brit mercs failed. Really no where in the world to go! Except, maybe, Hungary? Orban? Will you let our poor Nazi AC in? He's a refugee, you see.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:44AM (3 children)
Yeah? And? When my grandparents came to this country, they left behind their homeland which had recently been taken over by a bunch of thugs who thought that the world must be conquered by the "superior blue-eyed, blond-haired Aryan race"; some time later these thugs decided that all inferior races needed to be exterminated. No one in my family brought this ideology with them when they came to the USA. So, what's your point?
Again, what do you think my (our) essential core values are? You have made a bald claim without explaining what you think those core values are. Please be specific. Then we might be able to actually address your claim that the "evidence shows that our values are not being adopted".
So, yours is a "blood and soil" ideology. Sad, but unfortunately, not surprising to see. Fuck off, nazi!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @09:37AM (2 children)
Presumably your grandparents did not immediately then setting about a micronation pushing for a blue-eyed, blond-haired super race? I don't really think people mind immigration at all. I used to think it was the lack of integration that's the problem, but that's also clearly not it. There are, for instance, Chinatowns are pretty much everywhere in major US regions and everybody's pretty cool with that. So what is it?
I think the issue is when people come from these regressive countries and then try to impose their regressive values on other folks. Pretty much everywhere you see a large Muslim population you start to see pushes for things like Sharia law being enshrined in legal law. It also frequently comes with separatist movements once the population reaches a critical mass. Islam of course also tends to be associated with some pretty radical terrorism. For instance in the US only 1% of the population is Muslim, yet that's enough to generate a fairly substantial list of incidents. For instance this [wikipedia.org] is a limited list of terrorism incidents in the US since 2000. Hasan's and Muhammad's should, all other things being equal, make up 1/100 incidents. In practice, those names are pretty much everywhere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @07:10PM (1 child)
Did you actually bother to read the link you posted? While there are indeed some "Hasans" and "Muhammads" in there, your link doesn't quite support your claim that they are "pretty much everywhere".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @07:57PM
There are 87 incidents listed on that page since 2000. The expect Muslim incident rate, all other things being equal, would be a bit less than 1. They are dramatically over-represented. If we only consider the incidents where people actually die, they are even more dramatically over-represented.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:13PM (1 child)
We don't need magic dirt, we have a decent public school system. I'm serious, that's all it takes. Get rid of the other religious schooling options (Looking squarely at the separate Catholic system here, but sure let's ban Islamic, Jewish and whatever-the-fuck-else-schools while we're at it), ensure all children in Canada go through public school, and the problem solves itself. The kids will grow up a lot more like each other than they will like their parents.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday November 13 2019, @08:01PM
A few decades ago Quebec got rid of its religion-segregated school system (Catholic and Protestant; all other religions were subsumed under Protestant) and replaced it with a language-segregated school system (French and English; all other languages ended up enrolled in French schools, even though the English-based ones had better French-immersion programs).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:46PM
Many a smart frog on this swampy planet had cause to rue the day when "some agency does something"
https://www.lafontaine.net/lesFables/fableEtr.php?id=754 [lafontaine.net]
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:46PM (2 children)
Oh, I see, so he's supposed to toe the party line, or federal agents will step in.
You know, you people are only validating all those conspiracy theories about the "deep state" keeping order.
All those texts and memos and testimony are pure smoke and mirrors to create something out of nothing. They are constructing a crime. And the accusers are fellow criminals.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:53PM (1 child)
No - He's supposed to not break the law.
Why is that such a crazy idea?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:52PM
No - He's supposed to not break the law.
Well, none of them are, but people are only interested in half of them.
And while all you are clutching your pearls, your national security officials just did another coup in Bolivia. Still easier to bring down other presidents. Score another one for the good guys, eh?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:12PM (28 children)
Trust me, there are many of us in the US who totally agree. Watching the insane "arguments" that Republican's are conjuring up to "defend" the president may be the most bizarre thing I've ever witnessed. They can't (and aren't even trying to) dispute the facts: He clearly (even by his own admission) abused the power of his office in an attempt to entrench himself in that office. That's something that you expect of Putin, but not POTUS. It's the very definition of a blatant attack on democracy itself. This is no surprise from someone who's totally enamored with authoritarians, and seems to have nothing but disdain for actual democracies. You just can't sugar coat any of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:24PM (9 children)
Please critique the points made here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xE83o73MssA [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @12:23AM (8 children)
Don't you have any thoughts in your own head?
If so, let's hear them and discuss.
You can't have a discussion with a video. Which is likely why you won't express these ideas yourself -- since they can be discussed and you won't be able to say, "well, that part isn't what I was talking about. That's not me, it's this guy on youtube."
Why are you unwilling to do so?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @12:36AM (7 children)
Parent said they were watching "insane arguments of republicans". I have no idea what they are refering to so provided an example hoping they would point out what was so insane about them. Go away.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @12:51AM (6 children)
What are the arguments in the link?
Speak plainly and use prose or we'll end up with whole threads of shit like:
"You're wrong! https://bullshitlink.morebullshit.crap" [morebullshit.crap]
"Fuck you! https://otherbullshitlink.morebullshit.crap" [morebullshit.crap]
"https://bullshitlink.morebullshit.crap
https://bullshitlink.morebullshit.crap [morebullshit.crap]
[...]
https://bullshitlink.morebullshit.crap" [morebullshit.crap]
That's not discussion. That's just wasting people's time.
And yes, we're all aware of the idiotic trolling, lies, conspiracy theory bullshit and other garbage on youtube. Which is why normal people don't believe (and don't want to waste their time looking at) such garbage.
Have something to say about Rs bullshit and insanity? There's quite a bit of of it, but that doesn't mean you should expect reasonable people to follow a link with no explanation or information.
You can do better.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:03AM (5 children)
I asked nicely for you to go away, stop inserting yourself into other people's discussions.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:13AM (3 children)
This is an open forum. The folks this discussion *belongs* to are those who choose to participate. You (or anyone else) isn't the arbiter of who may or may not participate.
If you don't want everyone to participate in a discussion, have that conversation privately.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:42AM (1 child)
Typically it is fine, but you are abusing it. I will wait for the original poster to respond (if at all). However, if you would like to share something of relevance (ie, watch the video and comment on it), that would be fine too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @02:24AM
You're not the arbiter of what's appropriate.
If you don't like what I have to say, life is hard.
Now you're going to get hot sauce in your coffee (hey, Schlomo! you got that covered? good!) instead of sugar tomorrow.
You will pay for your insolence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @05:02AM
Except for aristarchus! Fuch that liberal guy!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:53AM
I tell you what. Why don't you take a flying fuck at a rolling donut and leave the rest of us to take the discussion wherever it may go? That would work for me. As someone else already pointed out, this is an open discussion forum. You don't own any more of this discussion than your personal contributions to it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:02AM (13 children)
Imagine for one moment that I wrote a post here alleging that Trump did not propose the investigation out of political benefit, what would you think of the rest of what I had to say? He absolutely did and I think most people can see this. And I think most people can also see that Biden's completely unqualified druggie of a son didn't get his $50k/month "consulting" gig in Ukraine on merit -- Biden's about as clean a freshly wiped wad of toilet paper after a nice dinner of cheap Mexican tacos and ultra-mega-mania-hot sauce the night before. Everything beyond this two facts is sensationalism and hyperbole. What I don't think people realize, somehow even top political planners, is that this hyperbole not only fails to sway but drives paradoxical outcomes. Trump's approval rating has increased since the advent of the impeachment hearings. This is the reason it went from being front page 24/7 news on sites such as the NYTimes to something relegated to their rambling partisan opinion pages.
It's like people forget that just a few years ago Trump was elected "in spite of" the media openly and LITERALLY declaring him Hitler. I put "in spite of" in quotes because I think that was probably why he was elected. It made the media lose all credibility and everybody loves thumbing their nose at pretentiousness - we chose to name a groundbreaking naval research vessels Boaty McBoatFace. Ok, let me get this straight: reality TV old guy is Hitler? Oh, yes, yes - I recall "You're fired! Sieg Heil!" Wait, did Hitler sieg heil himself? Anyhow. It's amusing because the media didn't want Trump to be elected but if they just did their one job and impartially reported things - he probably would have lost, even to Hillary. But because they jumped the shark, they suddenly got people interested - but not in the way they intended! And here we are, doing the exact same thing again. In 2008 I voted for Obama. I skipped 'fool me once 2012' and 'wtf is happening 2016', but In 2020 I'll probably be giving the Orange Hitler a vote. The reason is precisely because of this absurdity. Investigating corruption is now a "blatant attack on democracy itself"? All alongside this idiotic effort to try to create yet another Red Scare. It's all just so unbelievably regressive and fake. If investigating high-level corrupt clowns (even for bad reasons) is an attack on democracy itself, I think our democracy could use a good bit more attacking.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday November 13 2019, @08:54AM (4 children)
yup.
I didn't vote for Trump (or Hillary) but the tsunami of negativity spewed at him is incredible. It isn't like he decided to give the executive branch the power to execute Americans without trial based on secret legal memos -- something which should be immediately recognizable as impeachable because of the 5th amendment and all that. No -- there's never a peep about that or other insane Constitutional violations. Mat Taibbi noted in a recent episode of the Useful Idiots podcast (worth it) that presidents don't get impeached for crimes -- they get impeached for stepping on the toes of the other party, for violating their prerogatives.
Anyhow, I'm feeling that bitter desire to vote for Trump more strongly over time. Not because I like him. But because there's a whole swathe of chattering bobbleheads who need another bitch slap.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @05:52PM (3 children)
But whatabout...
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday November 13 2019, @08:18PM (2 children)
Yeah -- that's so valid. Let's just forget about the insidious slide into authoritarianism via egregious Constitutional destruction because orange man bad.
It seems to me the MOST relevant question is "whatabout".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @09:10PM (1 child)
Well since that was precipitated by Bush I don't think your point is what you think it is. Instead of uniting against corruption and supporting candidates that want to help "we the people" like Sanders you focus on the FUD fed to you by the GOP and the "titans of industry" that promote their pyramid scheme socio-economic policies.
The most relevant task is to make sure the most corrupt piece of shit to ever sit in the WH is held accountable, otherwise what hope do you have that the next corrupt bastard will be the line where we uphold the Constitution?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:04AM
It goes back farther than Bush of course, but Obama hit the pinnacle with Due Process Free Execution. If death squads aren't the mark of unconstitutional authoritarianship, what the fuck is?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @09:43AM (7 children)
I'm sure the actual voters for Hitler in 1932 felt the same as you. There was no election after that. I wonder why.
Sad.... sad you wrote a wall of text and learned *NOTHING*.
1. Trump can't name 1 fucking Ukrainian that is corrupt
2. Trump gives FUCK ALL about corruption in Ukraine or anywhere else
3. Ukraine is corrupt as fuck, but Trump only cares *manufacturing* dirt on Biden, not about any actual corruption that he actually embodies. You can find corrupt oligarchs in Ukraine with a single google search but Trump and his 'administration' is not even smart enough for that tiny cover-up of his motives (this is what Muller report produced - it deemed Trump too stupid to collude with Russians, even when there was plenty of evidence he tried)
Trump wanted a public statement for the Braitbart and nazi propaganda machine. He does not give a rats ass whether there was anything from it, as long as it's announced. It's enough to sway some idiots his way that he's "draining the swamp". The reality is he IS the swamp and it's about to consume him.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @11:32AM
"The reality is he IS the swamp and it's about to consume us."
FTFY
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:48PM
Once again, we should discontinue investigations into corruption because the motives of the would-be investigators are impure. Contrary to opinion here, I welcome Trump's efforts to generate dirt on Biden. We need more dirt. And the people who are going to investigate that dirt in the US are going to have such motives every single time. You can't expect the Republicans to investigate Trump thorough. It's going to be the politically motivated Democrats. And I'm fine with that as long as they find an actual crime.
Second, your assertion about the Mueller report is absolute nonsense. There's no "plenty of evidence" that Trump "tried". There is, however, the mentioned absence of evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians. It's amazing how hard people are spinning this crap.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:55PM (2 children)
This seems to be you just emotionally flailing with lots of pointless vulgarity in lieu of any supporting evidence or logic whatsoever. Oh and of course declaring everybody who disagrees with you a Nazi or an idiot - the epitome of refined political discussion.
If you have any argument with any form of evidence or logic, I'd be happy to engage with you though!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @03:54PM (1 child)
Did you just reveal your inner dialogue? Cause I read through your cultured version of "no u" and couldn't find a real point. I presume it is the usual Gaslight Obstruct Project!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @05:03PM
Our original poster is claiming to have insight into not only Trump's behaviors but the entire depth of his knowledge, his motivations, and more. This is provided with 0 rationale or evidence and little more than an appeal to what I can only presume are his psychic abilities. And while his claims are probably easy to digest for those muddled by partisanship, they're quite absurd on even the most facile of analysis. For instance I think most of everybody cares about corruption, certainly all political leaders. It's perhaps the single most common factor in the deterioration of great empires of times past. The conflating issue there is that we often turn a blind eye to it when we, or those we like, are benefiting from it.
But in my opinion what Trump is doing here is exactly as our founding fathers intended. They knew people were flawed and built a system that, even with the assumption of e.g. corruption, would work. And the idea there is exactly what's happening here. Trump is probably corrupt, but Biden is now probably provably corrupt, and Trump is going to use that against him. This system creates a series of 'watchmen' even when the primary motivation is self interest. We could get into why that system no longer works as well as it ought, but this is already tangential!
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Wednesday November 13 2019, @03:00PM
Ironically he does care a little, at least as far as how ambassador Marie Yovanovitch's involvement in trying to fight it was getting in the way of Giuliani's henchmen...thus the smear campaign to get rid of her....so there's that.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday November 13 2019, @05:05PM
Seriously, AC above said it nice and succinct: "And I think most people can also see that Biden's completely unqualified druggie of a son didn't get his $50k/month "consulting" gig in Ukraine on merit." https://soylentnews.org/politics/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=34602&page=1&cid=919733#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
There's nothing to manufacture, that's so obvious its hard to understand how it isn't more of a story in the media (well not really, it's just more of the bias). What would be interesting and what an investigation is for, is to find out how much US Taxpayer money went into his pocket, or how much "clean" money the aid freed up so that the "clean" money could be paid instead.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday November 13 2019, @12:39PM (3 children)
Essentially, if someone in the opposite party is involved in massive corruption, then fighting corruption (aka draining the swamp) will be attacked as political attack on democracy or some shit.
Obviously, the democrats, especially the previous administration, are deeply involved in corruption and bribery in the Ukraine, therefore that can never be investigated and the corruption can never be ended because it would be too political.
Kinda like the pedo stuff. Nobody can investigate or report on Epstein, especially not the press, because basically all kiddie touchers are Democrats so being anti-pedo is interfering with the election, so I guess we'll have to let them have their fun unimpeded. You're not being anti-pedo, you're merely being a Russian Agent if you point out all those pictures of Biden excessively touching very nervous looking young women, or point out that Clinton was best buddies with Epstein.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @03:56PM
For all the refusals to believe Trump's most obvious crimes you sure are quick to push opinions as verified hacks.
Conservatives these days, what a sad bunch of hypocrites. Fuck Biden and Fuck Trump. But fuck the racist VLM most of all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @04:53PM (1 child)
You could, but Epstein was a Jew, and all the media are owned by Jews. He was one of their own, in their families and social circles. The media heads do not want the American people to start making an association with being a Jew and committing sex crimes.
That most of these "elites" are democrats is probably secondary.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @07:08PM
All the goat touchers are Republicans.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday November 13 2019, @05:12PM
Not quite. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. They may currently have a common goal with us, but calling them "friend" requires much more than that.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:22PM (1 child)
The rest of the world is about 96% of the world's population. The US is about 4%.
(before some [another] idiot says [citation needed], I would point out googling for "US population", "world population", and using sophisticated mathematical techniques known as division. You will be familiar with division if you made it past the fifth grade.)
I wonder when the 96% of the population might figure out that they have a lot of trading partners who are not the US? Some of those partners might be more trustworthy than the US. Some more stable. And without four-year upheaval in policy. And especially not our current angry bull in a china shop administration.
This is just an opinion. Not everyone here will share it. But maybe, just maybe, the Emperor really is naked! There, I said it.
When our president says "America first". Listen to that. Now it's not that I don't think my country shouldn't look out for our own interests. But starting trade wars with our own allies is eye opening. Cozying up with and openly admiring dictators who were our enemies until this administration is revealing. Like we should have military parades, and goose step marches. Look at what unexpectedly happened last century.
We do live on a planet with other nations. And what happens DOES affect us.
It appears unseemly to bring world leaders to the president's private club, while NK launches missiles during dessert, for photo ops, and to increase the price of admission to the president's club. I know people will squirm that I said this, but it actually happened. The nuclear football guy posing for photo with one of the club guests.
This is the new world of crazy we live in. And some people here think it is a good thing! If you think my country's president is a nut-bar, maybe take that seriously and act accordingly for your own best interest.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday November 13 2019, @08:17PM
Here in Canada I am very aware that there is 96% of the world to trade with.
But I am also aware that it's a lot easier to ship across the border to the US than to India.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @03:25AM
Because Clinton and Obama put al-Qaeda [discoverthenetworks.org] in charge [shoebat.com] of them in exchange for "angel investments" in businesses that are heavy Democratic donors, who would agree to enact policies banning conservatives and the non-gullible from their workplaces and media properties. The secret "Angel Investors" that Silicon Valley has been so gaga over for the past decade are the bin Laden / BCCI network funneled through Saudi Arabia and Qatar and the Rothschilds [archive.is].
The Conservatives in the UK did the same thing. The police association Common Purpose is AQ in the UK, sponsored by Qatar [archive.is]. Bill Gates and his Carnegie friends sold the Common Core program to Qatar which is why school is so fucked these days. It's the exact same people who put Jamal Khashoggi [spectator.us] in the Washington Post. And you might have heard about the mess [encyclopediadramatica.rs] that happened when Gates put a terrorist [frontpagemag.com] on Microsoft's board [deepfreeze.it] and forced everyone in the company to agree with his propaganda. And there was a Saudi psyops specialist [archive.is] in the mix, a good friend of Brennan and Mifsud.
So if you remember people on the right saying that Brennan is a Muslim spy or Obama is a secret Muslim, the correct answer turned out to be all of them are. The entire Obama executive branch several people deep is guilty of the highest possible treason, as is former Secretary of State Madeline Albright. And they're keeping it going because it's making them money and no one is stopping them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:13PM (3 children)
You elected this ... person. And you ... support him.
:)
As a wharton alum, I apologize, for what it's worth.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:53PM
And I will vote for him again. The USA isn't the Earths police force nor is it their welfare check. Clean up the stink in your own shitstain country.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:27PM (1 child)
It reflects on Wharton to graduate someone who cannot read, write, speak in complete sentences, and is easily distracted.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:42PM
Squirrel!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:26PM (50 children)
It doesn't matter if they object. The boss is Trump. He sets foreign policy. He can set it any way he damn well pleases, changing it as often as he wants, and the career bureaucrats are obligated by law to enact his wishes.
Voters were sick of the old policy. Trump was elected to change policy. Refusal to obey is treason.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:40PM
.....
Sooo you uphold the law except when orange man good? ORANGE MAN GOOD CONSTITUTION BAD!
Seriously, you "people" are all in on the LITERALLY HITLER approach. "They'll never see it coming after all the bitching we did about being called nazis kekekeke."
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:45PM (30 children)
Refusal to obey *lawful* orders might be considered treason.
Speaking out against (even lawful ones) and refusing unlawful orders is most certainly not.
The oath [cornell.edu] taken by pretty much every elected/appointed official (except the president) states:
Note that USC 3331 [cornell.edu] does not include loyalty/support for a particular individual or office. But rather to the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:59PM (16 children)
Since we have elected Trump, he is not an enemy and it is his policy which determines who is an enemy. None of his orders have been unlawful.
So yes, uphold that oath. Obey our president, Donald J. Trump.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Snow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:05PM (14 children)
I could be wrong here... but isn't he being investigated for an illegal ordering of stopping military aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigating his political opponent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:14PM (1 child)
Yep, turns out investigating democrats is a crime for anyone powerful enough to do anything about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:37PM
In Ukraine, he asked for two "anti-corruption" investigations against the Dems.
Can you name one other anti-corruption initiative he has enacted?
No? Then this is not a matter of enforcing the law, it is a matter of punishing those that oppose him. That is, abusing his office for his personal gain.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:26PM (1 child)
Running for office isn't supposed to provide immunity to being investigated. If it did, where was Trump's immunity when Obama investigated him and even paid foreigners to concoct a false narrative in order to get a wiretap?
Trump is stuck with the duty to investigate crime, even when done by political opponents. Trump is stuck with the duty to negotiate with foreign leaders for assistance, using every carrot and stick available. Trump can stop aid whenever he wishes, and this is a perfectly fine tool for getting foreigners to cooperate.
None of this would be an issue if the Biden family hadn't abused political office to obtain bribes from foreign nations.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:34AM
Make sure they pay you in USD not Rubles.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 13 2019, @12:09AM (9 children)
You're not wrong. That is exactly what is happening.
I wonder what will happen when (or if) he is actually convicted of an actual crime?
I have spent most of my life assuming that I wouldn't actually live to see the American Civil War II, but there is a chance I might.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 13 2019, @04:38AM (8 children)
Like what? If as part of the conviction, you're expecting a Republican Senate to do the deed, you're going to need some pretty solid evidence of a pretty serious crime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @04:00PM (2 children)
Like all the crimes he committed while the GOP enjoyed the little power trip. Keep pretending reality isn't what it is, I mean that was Trump's explicit instruction.
You khallow have shown yourself to be a pure partisan hack who ignores simple facts for dreams of conquest. Short version, you are a traitot by proxy support.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @05:54PM
And, you, poor Mr. Coward, are an hysterical ninny who believes everything MSM tells you about the Trump.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 13 2019, @10:21PM
Like?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 13 2019, @08:22PM (4 children)
I'm not expecting a Republican Senate to convict Mr. Trump of anything, regardless of any evidence.
I am expecting the Republican Senate to continue to deny any crime was committed, and even if one was he's the President and can do what we wants.
That is what they've claimed so far, so why change?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 13 2019, @10:20PM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 13 2019, @11:17PM (2 children)
The part of your comment that caught my eye was:
I was making the point that I don't think evidence has any role in the Republicans strategy, which bodes ill for rule of law in your country.
Personally I think rule of law is a good thing largely, and laws ought to apply to everyone equally, but I don't think your Republican Party share that view, and I think that will be something they live to regret.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @11:58PM (1 child)
I think many of us, regardless of party affiliation, are already living to regret it. It feels like the country I once knew is evaporating before my eyes!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:24AM
I feel it is the democrat party that has gone batshit crazy, as outrageous as the republicans used to be. Not in pushing religion down your throat, but any harebrained idea that they can use to signal how woke they are. The shrill MSM just follows them along.
It may play well on campus, but millions of workers care more whether the Chinese ate going to pirate them out of a job, rather than celebrating some guy's transition to butterfly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:53PM
I took an oath to defend the Constitution. I don't know what oath you took or to whom.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:00PM (12 children)
So everyone from the President on down has sworn to protect the US Constitution. Plenty of room there for disobeying illegal and unconstitutional orders.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:19PM (11 children)
Not only that: There are mechanisms that are in place to prevent professional retaliation against a bureaucrat who refuses to obey an order that is unconstitutional, illegal, or (as of a few years ago) against current regulations. And there's a bureaucracy that exists to protect the bureaucracy, namely the Merit Systems Protection Board [mspb.gov].
The idea of all of this is that you don't want, for example, the decision on what the ideal fishing limits will be on North Atlantic cod to be affected by who is president when it's a question that's best answered by science. And you also don't want, say, the president or any other politician easily able to influence what the unemployment or inflation reporting says, because given the chance they will lie about the results.
My understanding is that the UCMJ has similar kinds of protections for military personnel who disobey an unconstitutional or illegal order, e.g. refusing to massacre civilians.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @12:49AM (10 children)
You could as well say that there are mechanisms in place to prevent the lawfully elected president from removing a recalcitrant partisan bureaucrat who refuses to obey an order that is politically unacceptable to that recalcitrant partisan bureaucrat.
We all know how the bureaucrats vote. They have a conflict of interest, namely saving their own jobs, that ought to disqualify them from voting. They are obviously the sort of people who think government is the solution, not the problem.
The MSPB is itself political. It is loaded up with democrats. Trump's nominees have been blocked. The lack of people slows the MSPB down, which is just dandy if you want to keep a recalcitrant partisan bureaucrat around. Trump nominated a chairman and vice chairman, as well as others, and the nominations are still being held up by uncooperative anti-American senators.
It is simply improper that the choice of the American voters can be stopped by recalcitrant partisan bureaucrats. I doubt this is even constitutional, because if congress can enact a law to prevent the president from gaining control of his own staff then one branch of government has usurped the power of another.
North Atlantic cod is a fine example. You may disagree with the will of the people, but they have spoken. Imagine what life would be like if the recalcitrant partisan bureaucrats were somehow all republican. They might disagree with you on the cod issue, and no democrat president could do a damn thing about it. Better examples perhaps: the recalcitrant partisan bureaucrats decide that no species is endangered, or that all guns beyond 0.50" caliber have a sporting use. You'd be pissed if the president couldn't stop that. You're just pleased because you know the recalcitrant partisan bureaucrats happen to be about 99% on your side.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @02:14AM
So, do I understand correctly that you would want our government "of, by, and for The People" to be replaced by mercenaries?!? Wow. Just. Wow.
Do you have any evidence of this? Care to share it with us?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @03:40AM (3 children)
Oh, you mean Trump taking funds specifically appropriated for one purpose and using them for another unrelated purpose?
Or the Trump administration flouting duly issued congressional subpoenas?
Yup. The Executive branch is certainly trying to usurp the powers of Congress.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:15AM (2 children)
One thing you said is something I think everybody could agree with: the executive branch is, without doubt, usurping the powers of congress. And this has been happening for many decades now. The problem is that far from wanting to constrain the executive branch, when "our" party (whoever that may be) is in the executive branch, we're all more than happy to hoora on about every expansion of executive power, as if we will always be in power. The fact that presidents can now arbitrarily attack other nations, without so much as a peep from congress, is really really messed up. Bombs should require votes. Even the argument of urgency is week. Instead of simply bypassing congressional authority in case of "emergencies", give each senator an emergency "pager" type device that they're required to keep on their person. It emits a loud shrill noise upon activation. This device, in times of emergencies would signal an immediate remote vote and provide the text of the issue being voted on. Any vote not responded to within 10 minutes is considered an approval. There - no more need for "emergency" carve outs which invariably end up being used as little more than a means of sidestepping congressional authority.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday November 13 2019, @08:58AM
It is also part of the problem that Congresspeople are cowards. If a war turns out to be unpopular, they don't have to get their toes singed when voters start looking for feet to hold to the fire. It's all so convenient for them and so there is no real effort to end the ongoing Executive coup.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:00PM
I think it more accurate to say that congress has been abdicating it's authority for decades. Prime example? WTF did we get all these presidential war powers acts? Next prime example? WTF haven't we had immigration reform since Operation Wetback? (Look it up, wikipedia has a page on it.) Congress routinely abdicates authorities and powers that it finds distasteful. Congress would only care if the president usurped congress' authority to vote itself a pay raise, or vote some tasty pork for themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @05:28AM (3 children)
Why do you hate America?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:06AM (2 children)
When did you stop beating your wife?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:12AM
Never. I'm not married.
Why do you hate America?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:02PM
I stopped beating my wife at the same time you became my bitch.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday November 13 2019, @03:26PM
The MSPB currently has no members, because Mitch McConnell blocked all of Obama's nominees. So it's not loaded with anybody.
The Senate is currently controlled by Republicans who are allies of Trump and would gladly approve members if Trump and/or Mitch McConnell actually wanted them approved. If you have a problem, it's with Mitch McConnell, not the Democrats.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 13 2019, @12:05AM (6 children)
Who modded this nonsense Insightful?
I thought you Americans didn't want to have kings?
What a fucking stupid way to run a country.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday November 13 2019, @03:47AM (5 children)
Some Americans, by all appearances, do in fact want to have kings.
And I'm not just talking about the people who voted for the current guy. I'm also talking about the people who gladly supported someone almost 20 years ago whose main qualification for the office of president was that his daddy was president, and whose administration was chock full of people who were describing a "unitary executive" theory that said that the president could treat everything Congress and the Supreme Court said as advisory rather than binding. And there were other people before that.
The impulse runs deep. It's basically "This guy ended up in charge of things and I didn't, that must mean they know something and/or are able to do things I don't understand. Therefor, they're better than I am, and I'm wrong to even question what they want me to do." Which is exactly the thinking of an authoritarian minion, the sort of person who would be perfectly at home in Stalin's USSR, Nazi Germany, or Ancien Regime France.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:04PM (4 children)
You're describing Hillary supporters?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:08PM
W's successful bid came before Hillary's, flamebaiter. Do try to read your history first. Now pipe down, adults are talking.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 13 2019, @08:14PM
Hillary? Oh, you mean the little old lady who has no job?
I can't imagine why you are so frightened of her.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday November 13 2019, @08:37PM (1 child)
No, I'm describing American conservatives, who have a strong belief in hierarchies and the justness thereof. They tend to like forms of organization that enforce that idea, such as the military and private businesses. (You might think that libertarian types aren't a part of this, but they are: Libertarians, at least in my experience, want to be sovereigns of their own small hierarchy rather than ensconced in somebody else's much bigger hierarchy, but aren't keen on challenging the idea of hierarchy in the slightest.)
Left-wing politics tends to be skeptical of hierarchies, at least as they exist now. The fundamental idea of the left-wing is that the people who are in charge aren't generally the most capable. There are variations: Modern liberalism (of the sort espoused by Hillary Clinton) argues that the problem is discrimination, which leads to a suboptimal outcome because more capable people are pushed further down hierarchies by irrational factors that often have nothing to do with their ability, such as their gonads or skin tone. Communists and socialists argue that hierarchies don't push more capable people down because of irrational discrimination, but as part of an intentional effort by incompetent people in charge to maintain their own lofty position and force those at the bottom of the hierarchy to do all the lousy jobs while having most of the value of their work stolen by the rich. This is why left-wing people tend to like forms of organization that create a strong sense of accountability for anybody in charge to the people they're supposed to be in charge of, with lots of voting or even consensus governance.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @09:13PM
He is just mad cause she is the graduation speaker at his middle school this year. She has family there and is doing it pro bono. Not quid pro quo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:25AM (2 children)
Ah, the "Nuremberg defense".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @03:11AM (1 child)
Better than Chewbacca defense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @03:43AM
Which is pretty much the defense being used Trump apologists.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @02:20AM (5 children)
Uhhhh, not quite. Congress does have an important constitutional role in setting foreign policy.
Are you sure that America is the right place for you? Something tells me that Saudi Arabia may be better suited to your ideals.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday November 13 2019, @12:43PM (4 children)
Note that the foreign policy in question is the previous administration historically and provably accepted bribes in exchange for favorable treatment, which is already illegal.
There's no clause in the constitution stating something like "democrats can accept bribes of millions of dollars for their kids in exchange for favorable policies and its treason to investigate or complain about it". I must have missed that part.
Essentially if you have a party of extreme corruption then any investigation of corruption will by definition be "political" in some sense if the Venn diagram of criminals and one party is overlapping almost completely.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:53PM (2 children)
"If" and "if". Corruption is bipartisan. Blaming one party for the whole deal is missing the picture in a way that enables the whole thing to continue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @04:04PM (1 child)
Well maybe if you would accept simple reality we could investigate all the corruption, but all we get from you is denial and "but her emails!!" while ignoring every shitty thing done in the WH.
You just want to avoid the proper blame so you fall back on false equivalency. That level of hypocrisy does not make for good team work.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 13 2019, @10:19PM
If you were familiar with my posting history, you would know that assertion is false. But since you mentioned it, Clinton's emails are yet another shitty thing done in the White House.
Moving on
The previous AC was claiming that the Democrat party was almost completely the source of corruption in the US. That was ridiculous. The equivalency wasn't false.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @04:54PM
You must have been too busy with the multiple investigations of Benghazi to notice the bribes.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @04:10PM (1 child)
Oh deary dear... let's just deconstruct everything wrong with that post...
Nuremberg. 'Nuff said.
Nowhere near the truth. No career bureaucrat may violate the law just because the President has ordered it to be violated. Might as well say that he can order the Special Forces to piss on the enemy corpses and take their ears. (Hint... he can't).
There's a very strong question about exactly how much authority Trump and Mulvaney had to delay the Ukraine aid that was passed by Congress.
So you talked to every single voter, huh? Every one of them told you they didn't like the way Ukraine was being treated? Some other time we can talk about how the President's ability to make policy is directly limited by the legislature's authorization to execute it. (There was a wonderful time in America where the Executive branch carried out the collective will of the legislature. Pepperidge Farm remembers, anyway.)
Treason is not the word you think it is. Refusal to obey is at the most insubordination which can be serious, yes. Refusal to obey because one feels the law supports your position is the opposite of treason, so long as your governmental system is not an autocratic or despotic monarchy or dictatorship.
Unless you're saying Trump is legally a despot? You know that's the word you apply when you think someone in power is legally entitled to do anything they want and however they want, right?
OK. Run along and play now. Adults have serious adulting to do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @09:56PM
Trump's orders are both legal and in the best interest of America.
Disobedience is thus both illegal and against the best interest of America. It aids America's enemies. It is thus treason.
Your argument might have worked better under Obama, when some of the presidential orders were illegal (wiretap Trump, etc.) and when many of the presidential orders actively harmed America.