Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?


Jumbo

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Just come out and say "Look, in our current system it is impossible to having a fighting chance without taking the money, but if you vote us into majorities in the House, Senate, & White House, it will be one of the first items on our list to remove all money from politics and fundamentally change how elections are funded"

:ols:

thats a good one

 

;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, superozman said:

 

This is what I gathered from his post - him wanting Dems to control all power.

 

IMO, this is a radical approach, and continues/creates the divide to be even larger.  But not sure that is any different than what Dems are upset with over Trump currently?  So is that the answer, for people to flip to what they want and be radical in that manner?  

thats not what I am talking about and I do not believe Steve is saying that either.

 

When I say "wield power" I mean do things without concern of the appearances of bipartisanship. Just behave like the party in power.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

thats not what I am talking about and I do not believe Steve is saying that either.

 

When I say "wield power" I mean do things without concern of the appearances of bipartisanship. Just behave like the party in power.

 

Hell, I will say it.  I don't think Dems should control all branches outright forever, but I wouldn't mind one full Presidential term of having the House & Senate.   Mostly what I want is the Dems in office with the ability to get legislation passed that will drag the "middle" back to the middle where it was before the last 30 years of moving it more rightward. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GOP likely doesn't want the full report released because they don't want it being made public the findings of what was actually going on, even if it doesn't amount to being able to prosecute for a crime.  There is a good chance the full report is going to provide a lot of dots (smoke) but come up short of being able to connect all the dots.  

 

And yes I also agree that if the actual Mueller report shows "complete exoneration" of Trump, then why would there be any resistance from releasing it in full for everyone to see?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Hell, I will say it.  I don't think Dems should control all branches outright forever, but I wouldn't mind one full Presidential term of having the House & Senate.   Mostly what I want is the Dems in office with the ability to get legislation passed that will drag the "middle" back to the middle where it was before the last 30 years of moving it more rightward. 

 

Do you think we've moved right in legislation? How so? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

 

1)  Perhaps because since Watergate, our nation has not seen a more blatant case of a President abusing his authority for the obvious purpose of silencing an investigation into himself?  

 

2)  And it worked for Bill Clinton because the Whitewater investigation was a witch hunt.  It was a political fishing expedition of unlimited breadth and duration, with no crime whatsoever having taken place, followed by "well, if we 'investigate' ehouch, then maybe we can come up with something that we can pretend retroactively justifies the investigation."  

 

That's the difference between Watergate and Trump/Russia, and Whitewater and Bengahzi.  The former began because there were obvious crimes committed, with obviously partisan political motives.  The latter were excuses for "let's subpoena everything in the world, yell 'coverup' if we don't get everything in the world, see if there's anything in it that we can pretend is a scandal, and who knows, maybe we'll actually find something illegal."  

 

6 hours ago, Jumbo said:

informative and thought-provoking policy debates and arguments of principle between ideologies, even when peppered with strong emotions,  is always a worthy and desirable goal to me, but these day i have very little tolerance for the too-common terminal level of hypocrisy and the disingenuous game playing

 

You wish.  :) 

 

(So do I.)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

As such, I suspect there are two main possibilities with several others floating out there but less likely:

1) Mueller was legitimately stumped on evidentiary aspects and punted

2) Mueller found enough but followed DOJ policy to not indict a sitting president (so punted but not on evidentiary purposes)

 

What really puzzles me is why he didn't 

 

1)  Really, the only way to convict Trump, would be to get Junior, Kush, or somebody at that level to flip on him. So, while I can understand him maybe feeling that Trump is beyond his jurisdiction, Junior and Kush do not enjoy said immunity.  

 

2)  And how come not once putting Trump under oath, simply to nail him to the set of lies he's sticking with, now?  While I can see the notion that only Congress has the authority to prosecute POTUS, there's no rule that says the cops can't take a statement.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

He did, no one in the media cares.

 

No he didn't, he is performing the duties of his office, which in no way changes  or usurps congress's power

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I hope they never release the report or not until Trump is gone. Trump's "vindication" is only for his base, he didn't win over any liberals and I doubt he gained back any swing voters with this summary. Dems need to focus on their popular policies (the GOP doesn't have any), but they can still push for the unreleased Mueller report and label the GOP as cons.

13 minutes ago, visionary said:
Collins is more worthless and spineless than Graham, I really hope she loses...and maybe gets hit by a bus.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

The biggest things Dems need to do, and you somewhat addressed it, wield power.

 

I'm looking at ways Democrats can get the power first in order to then wield it.

 

I think one key will be finding our natural core demographics of partisan fighters and organizing and mobilizing them.  People willing to move Overton windows and bring militancy to the Left.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

No he didn't, he is performing the duties of his office, which in no way changes  or usurps congress's power

 

Suppressing the results of an investigation in order to protect the political party who committed them is not "the duties of his office".  

 

The fact that someone is abusing a power which he legitimately has does not make it a "duty".  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...