• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

General political chat

Bairstow

Well-Known Member
Isn't criminal justice usually footed by the tax payer? Besides Trump ran on draining the swamp didn't he? I doubt he imagined this would be how he'd go about it. But he is certainly (and quite unintentionally) exposing a lot of that swamp here.
When Trump talked about the "Swamp", he was talking about officials in the federal government who oppose his agenda, not corruption generally. Trump is largely in favor of corruption at the federal level, and his cabinet picks (Pruitt, Zinke, Devos, etc.) and his own trade moves regarding China and ZTE/Lido City affair bear this out.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
Lets not pretend there was no inciting reason for this investigation. There was interference in our election by a foreign government that required an investigation. Trump had some corrupt people working for him. And he did some corrupt things while trying to protect his reputation during an election. If those were inadvertently exposed because of the investigation, I don't see that as a bad thing. And would think the same regardless of who was president.
The interference happened under the previous administration though, right?
 

gsam4ever

Well-Known Member
Big deal. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Hillary Clinton all lied this past week in relation to a SC hearing. And Trump ran his mouth about PR. And you're worried about Eric Trump boasting about the economy? People lie, boast, use hyperbole.

Be thankful we are in a strong economy rather than a recession. Goodness...
Oh I am. But it's fun to poke people on the right with silliness like this. It's Friday, Manafort is flipping, and life is good.
 

Gomer

Well-Known Member
The interference happened under the previous administration though, right?
And? The investigation was into the interference, not the president. The fact that the president has gotten caught up in crossfire is no ones fault but his own. If there was any wrongdoing under the previous administration I'm sure Mueller ( A Republican) would not hesitate to add that to his investigation as well.
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
And? The investigation was into the interference, not the president. The fact that the president has gotten caught up in crossfire is no ones fault but his own. If there was any wrongdoing under the previous administration I'm sure Mueller ( A Republican) would not hesitate to add that to his investigation as well.
The only issue I have with this thought, is that it has been speculated frequently that the previous admin knew this was going on and did not intervene. Not sure if that would constitute an illegal act on the part of the previous admin, but there is ample filth to be thrown around at many people.
 

Gomer

Well-Known Member
The only issue I have with this thought, is that it has been speculated frequently that the previous admin knew this was going on and did not intervene. Not sure if that would constitute an illegal act on the part of the previous admin, but there is ample filth to be thrown around at many people.
And speculation is all that it is....for now. As I said before. If anyone in the previous administration was complicit for political reasons, they should be prosecuted too. The thing is, we know so little of what's actually going on in Mueller's offices. Yet we all speculate on the little that has leaked out or happened publicly. We can't really make any judgments one way or another until the whole thing wraps up. Until then, you just have the two sides speculating. Everything from Trump has been in cohoots with Putin for a decade and this was all part of a master plan....all the way to this is a vast conspiracy of the deep state out to stop Trump from draining the swamp and upending the status quo. And all the various levels in between. But none of us has proof either way. SO, considering what is at stake here if some real nefarious stuff was going down, its in all of our best interest to let the investigation run its course. If we squash it for political reasons with no proof, we only risk undermining our own democracy. If we let it finish, all we lose is money.
 

OneofThree

Well-Known Member
What bothers me most about the witch hunt investigation is this:

When Obama was acting unilaterally and the Senate majority followed suit, my greatest concern was the establishment of a precedent which might haunt us moving forward. Those concerns have been proven warranted by the current administration and current majority. In the same way, I now fully expect Trump's successor's presidency (whether dem or Rep) to be littered with the same sort of accusations, rhetoric, and effective inquisitions from get-go. Bank on it.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
And speculation is all that it is....for now. As I said before. If anyone in the previous administration was complicit for political reasons, they should be prosecuted too. The thing is, we know so little of what's actually going on in Mueller's offices. Yet we all speculate on the little that has leaked out or happened publicly. We can't really make any judgments one way or another until the whole thing wraps up. Until then, you just have the two sides speculating. Everything from Trump has been in cohoots with Putin for a decade and this was all part of a master plan....all the way to this is a vast conspiracy of the deep state out to stop Trump from draining the swamp and upending the status quo. And all the various levels in between. But none of us has proof either way. SO, considering what is at stake here if some real nefarious stuff was going down, its in all of our best interest to let the investigation run its course. If we squash it for political reasons with no proof, we only risk undermining our own democracy. If we let it finish, all we lose is money.
This is the crux of the matter. No one so far has been convicted of anything related to the interference. It has all been things from their past.. so do we go back as well?.., it happened under their watch.
It happened under that administration, why is there not any investigations there?

I don’t understand how it’s not concerning to any American, regardless of political party, that these investigations have taken such a turn.. this isn’t what we were sold.
 

gsam4ever

Well-Known Member
The only issue I have with this thought, is that it has been speculated frequently that the previous admin knew this was going on and did not intervene. Not sure if that would constitute an illegal act on the part of the previous admin, but there is ample filth to be thrown around at many people.
I'm sure from what I read that Obama knew that Russia was trying to interfere with our elections and didn't do a lot to stop it besides warning Trump and his transition team. If this is indeed true then he and his administration deserves some heat for not doing enough. Is it illegal...absolutely not.

With that being said there is HUGE difference between knowing about it and not doing enough to try and stop it (and we do not know how much and for how long Obama knew to be fair) and the amount of shady dealings that have been proven and will be proven with Trump and his team.

One may have known and warned Trump about the Russians and did not do enough to prevent it (BAD) and the other actively pursued the Russians in order to change the outcome of the election (WAY WAY BADDER!!!!)
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
What bothers me most about the witch hunt investigation is this:

When Obama was acting unilaterally and the Senate majority followed suit, my greatest concern was the establishment of a precedent which might haunt us moving forward. Those concerns have been proven warranted by the current administration and current majority. In the same way, I now fully expect Trump's successor's presidency (whether dem or Rep) to be littered with the same sort of accusations, rhetoric, and effective inquisitions from get-go. Bank on it.
Our money, taken out of the bank.. to pay for investigations that have nothing to do with national security/election interference.
It’s so gross at this point. Anyone who believes that only Republican businessmen/politicians have committed white collar crimes which could be federally prosecuted.. Well, I have some land in Wakanda to sell to you.
 

Gomer

Well-Known Member
This is the crux of the matter. No one so far has been convicted of anything related to the interference. It has all been things from their past.. so we do go back as well?
Convicted? No. Indicted? Yes. And again, you don't actually know what's going on inside Mueller's camp. We dont' even know what info Manafort is giving up in his plea deal yet. Probably smart to wait and see before we make broad statements of what is happening behind closed doors.

It happened under that administration, why is there not any investigations there?
The investigation is into the election meddling. Not the administration.


I don’t understand how it’s not concerning to any American, regardless of political party, that these investigations have taken such a turn.. this isn’t what we were sold.
You weren't sold anything. You didn't have a say in this investigation outside of electing the man who appointed appointed the people who started the investigation. The Attorney General's office determined what to investigate and are acting upon it. A REPUBLICAN appointee has decided what is worth and not worth investigating. And we only have a little sliver of a view into what's going on in that investigation because of the plea deals happening out in the open.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Convicted? No. Indicted? Yes. And again, you don't actually know what's going on inside Mueller's camp. We dont' even know what info Manafort is giving up in his plea deal yet. Probably smart to wait and see before we make broad statements of what is happening behind closed doors.
Was Manaford indicted for anything pertaining to election conspiracy?

The investigation is into the election meddling. Not the administration.
See above.

You weren't sold anything. You didn't have a say in this investigation outside of electing the man who appointed appointed the people who started the investigation. The Attorney General's office determined what to investigate and are acting upon it. A REPUBLICAN appointee has decided what is worth and not worth investigating. And we only have a little sliver of a view into what's going on in that investigation because of the plea deals happening out in the open.
Are we now claiming that Republicans were screaming like hyenas for this investigation? Or was it someone else..?
 

gsam4ever

Well-Known Member
Convicted? No. Indicted? Yes. And again, you don't actually know what's going on inside Mueller's camp. We dont' even know what info Manafort is giving up in his plea deal yet. Probably smart to wait and see before we make broad statements of what is happening behind closed doors.


The investigation is into the election meddling. Not the administration.



You weren't sold anything. You didn't have a say in this investigation outside of electing the man who appointed appointed the people who started the investigation. The Attorney General's office determined what to investigate and are acting upon it. A REPUBLICAN appointee has decided what is worth and not worth investigating. And we only have a little sliver of a view into what's going on in that investigation because of the plea deals happening out in the open.
Well said. I guess that people expect Mueller to give daily briefings on what he and his team are doing and what they have found out. Shocking!! it doesn't work like that. He is slowly moving forward and doing the job that he was hired (by a Republican) to do. People complain that it should wrap up because it's taking so much time but I already posted a chart on the length of other special counsels investigations and Mueller's isn't long at all comparative to those.
 

Gomer

Well-Known Member
Was Manaford indicted for anything pertaining to election conspiracy?
It doesn’t matter what he was indicted for it matters what info he’s giving up in his plea deal.

Plus I wasn’t talking about him I was talking about all those pesky Russians people conveniently like to forget about who were indicted for election meddling.

That alone makes the investigation a worthy endeavor regardless of what else is found.
 

Gomer

Well-Known Member
Are we now claiming that Republicans were screaming like hyenas for this investigation? Or was it someone else..?
You’ve lost me. I’m honestly not sure what this has to do with anything we were discussing. Are you claiming that there was no election meddling and that the republican attorney generals office only started the investigation to quiet the minority party?
 

EricsBiscuit

Well-Known Member
Nazism is considered right wing because it's fascist. Per Merriam Webster, fascism a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorical leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Nazis used the Aryan race and identity to push and state they were better and above others while being headed by an all powerful leader.

RIghtwing and leftwing can have authoritarian governments. The biggest difference however between communism and fascism is in perfect theory and not how its actually applied in a true communist society every one no matter what is considered equal whereas fascism thrives on class.
What makes fascism socialist is the "severe economic and social regimentation." The difference b/w fascism and communism is the race part. I would disagree that use of race and nationalism is inherently right wing. In any case, fascism is extremely oppressive and clashes with every single one of my libertarian values.
 

EricsBiscuit

Well-Known Member
What bugs me about Trump is when he is wrong, he entrenched himself in that position to try to save face. I support him on policy and for how he says most stuff. But when he starts entrenching himself when he's wrong over little stuff like the inauguration attendance, it bugs me.
 
Top Bottom