Social Question

Dutchess_III's avatar

What does Trump hope to prove by not sending a lawyer to the impeachment hearings to represent him, and refusing to attend himself?

Asked by Dutchess_III (41808points) December 2nd, 2019

He says the impeachment hearings are a hoax.

Is this just another idiotic, baby hands move or does he actually think it will benfit him somehow? And if he doesn’t send any representation, will this benefit the Dems who are impeaching him?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

194 Answers

MrGrimm888's avatar

It’s an attempt to make it seem illegitimate.
I’m not sure of the legality, based on the fact that he’s POTUS. So far, Trump has been above the law.

It shouldn’t change the outcome of the hearing. Assuming it’s all based on facts. It’s a risky tactic though. The dems can basically present, only facts that would benefit their case. A representative of Trump, would produce evidence to contradict those facts…

johnpowell's avatar

Depends on your view. To me it is indefensible behavior so yeah. He clinged to a Clinton aid claiming the 5th saying it was essentially a admission of guilt. But he will do it and say that the system is corrupt.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Those were my thoughts too @MrGrimm888. The dems can say almost anything they want. It’s just a dumb move (again) on trump’s part.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Well. It’ll probably galvanize his base. But the dems will still need to prove their case.

stanleybmanly's avatar

It’s important to understand that the hearings are but the investigative phase of the impeachment process. As such, there is no point to Trump or his attorney attending the proceedings, just as though you were a suspect in a crime, you or your attorney would not necessarily participate in your investigation UNLESS and UNTIL you were to be questioned. What Trump has done is to forbid anyone from the executive branch to comply with Congressional subpoenas on the truly flimsy pretext of executive privilege. It is apparently his only defense, and ludicrous as the courts have thus far told him. But stonewalling is not going to save the fool. People of integrity have openly defied the dummy and complied with the subpoenas and as expected dug an ever deepening hole for the fool’s grave. As a practical matter, it has become rather apparent that the job of representing Trump as his attorney is the opposite of the get out of jail free card. For, Cohen, Manafort and now Giuliani it’s go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go!

Yellowdog's avatar

The republicans / Trump’s attorneys cannot call witnesses without approval, nor have advanced knowledge of what witnesses the democrats call, thus, never know what evidences they need to produce or challenge in court. The process, like the charges themselves, is partisian and illegitimate—exactly what the founders were trying to avoid.

Let it move onto the senate, where rules of evidence will be followed, legitimate witnesses accepted, and due process allowed for both sides.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The impeachment phase is NOT a trial. It is the gathering of evidence and the fool is not allowed to determine or challenge that evidence UNTIL he is charged and tried.

seawulf575's avatar

as @Yellowdog said, there really is no point in sending anyone. Let’s be honest about what this hearing is. When Schiff and the Intelligence Committee were actually interviewing witnesses, they didn’t want to allow the Repubs to call any witnesses and didn’t want to give the President a chance to have attorneys present to defend himself. Now Nadler and the Judiciary committee are picking up a hearing and have extended the option of the President or his attorneys to be present. On the surface, that sounds good. But look deeper. The purpose of this hearing is to have academics come in and answer esoteric questions about impeachment. They are not actually having any substantive interviews. Repubs and the President (or his attorneys) are still not going to be able to call witnesses and the Dems have refused to actually give a list of who will appear. This portion, just like the previous iteration, is a sham. It is an effort by the Dems to act like it is legitimate. By sending his attorneys, Trump would be giving legitimacy to it with absolutely no gain whatsoever.

stanleybmanly's avatar

In view of what happens to Trump’s attorneys, and anyone else with the impertinence to defend the slimeball under oath, it seems reasonable for both Trump and anyone foolish enough to insert themselves between the idiot and the gallows to avoid the proceedings at all costs.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Yellowdog “Let it move onto the senate, where rules of evidence will be followed, legitimate witnesses accepted, and due process allowed for both sides.”

If you had knowledge of, or respect for, the Constitution then you’d understand the this is the legitimate process laid out in the Constitution. And you’d know that letting it move to the Senate means that the President has been formally charged. The House conducts the investigation, the Senate conducts the trial.

KNOWITALL's avatar

He’ll care when told he needs to, like powerful people do. I think its rather comical that he’s thumbing his nose at the circus, its his risk to take.

Yellowdog's avatar

@Darth_Algar Partisian impeachment for political reasons, impeachment without due process or evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, are NOT in the Constitution. Almost everything the Dems are doing in running this runs in opposition to the Constitution.

Elian's avatar

Trump might not have been a vetted politician but he has plenty of advice and he is perfectly street smart. If he decided against playing in a rigged game, it is a good decision. Any WH participation would have fully legitimized the process.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

^ The man-baby doesn’t make his own decisions. He’s not smart enough. I’m sure he’s doing what ever lawyer he has, who’s not in jail, is telling him to do.
If he has any thoughts it’s dreams of a Big Mac and chocolate cake.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Yellowdog

Yeah, that’s exactly what many Democrats said when the Republican controlled House was holding impeachment hearings against Clinton.

Funny how “due process”, ect depends on one’s political views.

Vignette's avatar

It must be a legitimate investigation because it is about Trump. They know they don’t have shit on him to impeach him so their last ditch ruse is to lure him into giving testimony in hope they can get him to fib or lie about something no matter how obscure to hang him with. Without it they have bubkis on Trump to actually impeach him. Whatever they (Dems) do try will never be enough to pass a vote in the Senate so it is all a colossal waste of time and money. Blow-back from this impeachment nonsense will be of epic proportions for the Dems.

Yellowdog's avatar

@Darth_Algar Clinton committed actual felonies, and had full legal representation who could call their own witnesses and months to prepare a defense. Everything was done in public, not a secret chamber in the basement of the capitol.

In this case, we have no idea even what the charges are, no witnesses permitted on the president’s side, and a completely stacked court.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Yellowdog

We “have no idea what the charges are” because there are not charges yet. The impeachment phase is an investigative phase to determine if there has been wrong doing. The House conducts the investigation and then charges or declines to charge, depending on what said investigation uncovers. If the POTUS has been formally charged it then goes to the Senate for the trail phase.

This has been explained to you several times. I’m not sure what’s so difficult to understand about it. Think of it like this: you cannot be tried in court until you have been formally charged. And you cannot be formally charged until an investigation has been conducted. Stop listening to the shouting imbeciles on cable news and try to learn something for once.

KNOWITALL's avatar

fyi-

The Mechanics of House Impeachment Investigations

The House has a number of options for proceeding with its impeachment investigation, as the manner by which the body chooses to implement its impeachment powers is textually and historically committed to the House’s own discretion. It could adopt a resolution that explicitly authorizes the House Judiciary Committee (or another committee) to conduct an investigation to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to impeach the President and, if warranted, report articles of impeachment to the House. Or the
House could establish and empower a select investigative committee to handle this duty, perhaps giving the body broad jurisdiction over all relevant aspects of the allegations against the President. In either case, an authorizing resolution typically makes explicit that the investigating committee is acting with the imprimatur of the House and exercising the full panoply of the House’s constitutionally based investigative and impeachment powers. Authorizing resolutions also provide a means for the House to both direct the scope of an impeachment inquiry and, if desired, provide the investigating committee with
additional tools to enable a thorough and expeditious investigation. While House rules already provide standing committees with several compulsory mechanisms to gather information, authorizing resolutions for impeachment inquiries have generally conferred additional investigatory tools to a committee, such as the authority to compel responses to interrogatories.
Rather than considering a resolution that expressly authorizes an impeachment inquiry of the President, the House might take the position that such an inquiry is already underway, and opt to allow its committees to continue their ongoing investigations or begin new inquiries using their existing investigative tools and authorities. It is because those existing investigative tools and authorities have grown over time—and now include allowing committee chairs to issue subpoenas and committee staff to take depositions—that the practical need for obtaining additional powers from the House may have
diminished. Both the Speaker’s initial statement, in which she specified that the House will “direct[] our six committees to proceed with their investigation under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry,” and subsequent statements suggesting that the Intelligence Committee will continue to focus on recent whistleblower accusations, appear to suggest that the House may follow this type of approach, with an impeachment investigation that encompasses ongoing investigations by various committees.
If the House takes no new action on authorizing the investigation, the Speaker’s statement that the House is launching an “official impeachment inquiry” is unlikely to put to rest the debate among some inside and outside of Congress about how to properly characterize various committees’ ongoing investigations of possible executive misconduct, including continuing investigations by the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. This debate centers on the proper role of the House in initiating impeachment investigations. For example, while Chairman Nadler has stated that the Judiciary Committee is already in
“formal impeachment proceedings” and the Committee has adopted “procedures” for the “presentation of information in connection with the Committee’s investigation to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment,” Ranking Member Collins has asserted that “House precedent requires the full House approve a resolution authorizing the Judiciary Committee to begin an impeachment inquiry.” Nor does it appear that the Speaker’s statement alone will necessarily prevent the Trump Administration from
arguing (as it is doing in pending litigation) that the House has not “expressly endorsed” the Judiciary Committee’s impeachment investigation. The Speaker’s statement might be read to support those in the House who believe authorization for an impeachment investigation has already been provided by prior legislative actions, including, among other things, referring articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee and authorizing House committees to exercise “any and all necessary authority under Article I of the Constitution” in specified litigation matters.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10347

Dutchess_III's avatar

What everyone is trying to tell you @Yellowdog and @seawulf575, is at this point they are just trying to determine if there is enough information to charge the man with specific crimes. What they are doing now is NOT a trial.

Vignette's avatar

@Dutchess_III From where I sit what you just said is NOT what the main stream media AND the DNC is telling us. Both entities have already convicted Trump and painted impeachment as the given result before there was even one hearing. Perhaps IF the MSM and the DNC presented such that our President is indeed innocent until charges are brought and then a vote is taken and passed in the Senate we would not need to have this conversation.

Dutchess_III's avatar

They may have convicted him in their minds, as I have, but so what? You and I both know that that “innocent until proven guilty” is bologna. You saw him do it, you heard him do it, he’s guilty.
Whether or not the law determines whether there is enough evidence to go to trial is not up to us.
Whether or not he IS guilty, is also up to the law, not us.

These hearings are to determine exactly that, to determine if charges should be filed.

Nothing wrong with discussing it.

Vignette's avatar

Sorry @Dutchess_III I am not convinced Trump did anything out of the ordinary that any previous President, Senator congressman, governor, etc has engaged in some form or another. There WAS in place a gentlemans understanding that certain “things” transpired that no one got their undies in a bunch over because everyone does/did it. The RNC engaged in their own fiddle faddle when Obama was our President but never to the degree the Dems are doing right now. A precedent is being established that I am afraid is toothpaste we will not be able to get back in the tube and that obstructionist politics will consume Congress unless we the voters say enough is enough. Until then if you want to play this type of game be prepared to get as much as you give. I said before the blow-back from this impeachment Russia non-sense will be of epic proportions.

Dutchess_III's avatar

It’s OK to have your opinion @Vignette, but it simply doesn’t matter. Neither does my opinion.
We will find out eventually, who was right and who was wrong.

KNOWITALL's avatar

To some of us, there’s definately something wrong with continuing using OUR taxpayer funds to try to bury the President WE legally elected. Hell Mueller was $30 million alone!

And just fyi, Bill Clinton’s approval ratings went up after impeachment, not down. So you really are helping Trump win, as we’ve mentioned.

After his impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999, Clinton’s rating reached its highest point at 73% approval. He finished with a Gallup poll approval rating of 65%, higher than that of every other departing president measured since Harry Truman.-Wiki

seawulf575's avatar

“What everyone is trying to tell you @Yellowdog and @seawulf575, is at this point they are just trying to determine if there is enough information to charge the man with specific crimes. What they are doing now is NOT a trial.”

@Dutchess_III in other words, they don’t actually have any reason to investigate…they are hoping to find something or enough innuendo to call it an impeachment. You said it yourself…they are trying to find enough information to charge the man with crimes. Not that there ARE crimes and they are trying to establish if they are valid or even impeachable. In other words, just like the Russia Collusion farce, this is a investigation to find a crime. How’d that one work for ya? You swore up and down that Trump was going down and that he was lying about not colluding with Russia and that he was scrambling to cover up his crimes. Yet…well…the investigation found no crimes. It’s all a political hack job…not a responsible political act by congress.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Okay @seawulf575 I know you love having a dictator wannabe in the WH but you are not a Constitution expert !
Let the chips fall where may after they produces more evidence of “High crimes and misdemeanors” and show more about the NYC gangster and racketeer you are so happy to have WH.

And stop with the “of course he didn’t do that ! In the face of evidence to the contrary ! His logic is I’m President and I am above the Law.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@seawulf575. I know it’s confusing. They have reason to believe that they have something serious worth investigating, and that is what they are doing now. They are investigating. If their suspicions are confirmed, then they will then file charges. Hopefully the Cheeto will have a different address by Christmas.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III They have nothing and we all know it. Their “witnesses” either only had hearsay evidence, opinion, or were merely brought it to whine. Look at the most “damning” evidence. It was people saying they disagreed with Trump’s foreign policy. Some underling not liking what the boss does not constitute a crime by the boss. They were originally going to try for the coercion using their pet whistleblower, but Trump slapped that aside by quickly releasing the telephone transcript. Just like with the Russian Collusion investigation, it started with a lie and grew from there. So then they were trying to read between the lines to come up with coercion but they had to ignore the fact that the Ukrainian president himself said there was no coercion…no quid pro quo…and that he never felt any pressure. He didn’t even know the foreign aid had been held up. Kinda hard to cry “Coercion!” when the one that was supposedly being coerced said it never happened.
See, you just said the entire problem with the Dems’ efforts: It’s confusing. It ignores facts, it avoids actually dealing with what they hoped was a problem, and in the end it has no coherence. If Trump used his power for political gain, then that falls apart because he never got what he was supposedly trying to get. It was never promised and it was never mentioned to Zelenskyy as anything other than a passing comment. He supposedly held up aid until an investigation into Biden to dig up dirt was done. Well, the aid has been in Ukrainian hands for a couple months and there isn’t even a mention of such an investigation being done. So that entire narrative is weak at best. There is nothing here other than desperation by the Dems.

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie you are always so high strung! Didn’t you pretty much tell me the same thing when the Russian collusion investigation was going? Let the chips fall where they may and we will see what a crook Trump is! Yeah…we did. He isn’t. But you did use the correct term in your whiny response…produce. That is exactly what the Dems are doing. Especially if you take the meaning of the word as ”To create by physical or mental effort.”. That pretty much sums up the desperation by the Dems. Try to make something that doesn’t exist through physical and mental efforts.
No, I’m not a Constitutional scholar and neither are you. But let’s agree on something simple that a third grader can talk to: There has to be a high crime or misdemeanor for an impeachment to take place. So far all the Dems have “produced” is a lot of innuendo…no actual evidence of any crime whatsoever. The facts don’t support their claims. And that is exactly why the Senate will never convict. And why Trump will be our POTUS for another 4 years. Think your sanity can handle that?

Dutchess_III's avatar

They’re investigating. If they have nothing we will soon find out. If they have something, we will soon find out.
Personally, I believe they have something and something serious..

Dutchess_III's avatar

Read This article

Schiff says there’s a ‘grave risk to the country’ if lawmakers wait to get ‘every last fact.
Schiff argued Tuesday that there would be a “grave risk to the country” if lawmakers wait until they have “every last fact” before proceeding with their efforts on impeachment. (In other words, it will only get worse, not better.)
What his panel has produced so far is overwhelming (emphasis is mine) enough that it ought to be presented to the Judiciary Committee “without delay,” Schiff told reporters, adding that lawmakers will file supplemental reports if more is discovered as they continue their investigation.
Schiff also declined to say whether he supports impeaching Trump, but noted: “As you can tell, I am gravely concerned that if we merely accept this, that we invite not only further corruption of our elections by this president, but we also invite it of the next president.”

Darth_Algar's avatar

If there is nothing there, then Donald Trump has nothing to worry about. So why all the protestation and attempts at obstruction? I mean, really, for an innocent man he sure goes out of his way to make himself look guilty.

stanleybmanly's avatar

It is absolutely astonishing that those popping up with excuses for the fool will not face the facts. Here are some facts. A man with the proven integrity of sewage is being called to account. For those inclined to dispute the scandalous corruption defining the fool there is the interesting fact that he cannot retain a personal attorney who is not rewarded with a prison sentence for serving in that capacity. Indeed, the Mueller report, far from absolving the fool of any guilt, undeniably demonstrates that any and all who dare risk the fool’s confidence place themselves on the fast track to prison! In fact Mueller more than hinted that the only reason our idiot President himself persists on the “outside” is that his crony appointees arrived with the sleazy trick that a sitting President is beyond prosecution—a supposition that will NEVER survive its trip through the courts. Meanwhile, everyone stepping up to the plate in defense of the dummy finds their careers destroyed, their lives in tatters. Giuliani marks the FIFTH of Trump’s personal attorneys now on the fast track to jail! Nunes stuck his neck out in defense of the dumbbell only to reveal that said neck itself is buried in the Ukraine cesspool. Everyone in on that phone call is culpable, and thereby in the express lane for destruction. Trump is ultimately the ruin of the Republican party and the graveyard of Republican reputations. Barr, a man of ability is clearly in the chute to the meat grinder for the incredibly short sighted decision to prop up the intractable turd.

Meanwhile, every day that these proceedings advance, NEW scandals arrive. No rock is uncovered without revealing more slime. Trump apologists look at this and would prefer to regard it as ruthless persecution of the dummy, to which I say “WAKE THE FUCK UP” The frenzy would be IMPOSSIBLE, were the sewage nonexistent.

seawulf575's avatar

@Darth_Algar What attempts at obstruction? Really. Think about it. The Dems have, for 3 years, done nothing but create controversy and claimed all sorts of crimes that Trump has committed. They have pushed innuendo and allegation as if they were facts. They have ignored actual facts to create a narrative that says Trump is a criminal. This is just another example of that. Why in God’s name would any sane human go along with that if it was directed at them? Trump has basically said “Until you do something lawful there is no reason to take it seriously”. I happen to agree with that assessment. As much as all of you fools on the left want Trump to be a criminal, you fail to realize you have to entirely ignore facts to get there. And that is what the Dems are counting on…fools that will believe whatever they are told. Let me hear you say “Baaaaaa”.

stanleybmanly's avatar

A nice little narrative until you take a peek at all of those devout high level “believers” now worshiping from prison.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Trump has no experience with politics, or being POTUS. What he does have, is the fact he’s been sued, or been in court (for one reason or another,) dozens of times.
These proceedings, are finally something in his wheel house. I think he knows exactly how to slither out of being convicted.

You can doubt almost everything else about him. But this will just be an impeachment, not a removal of him. This time, he has the backing of the Republican party, and his experiences with being the court system. Underestimate that, if you want.

Even if evidence points to his guilt, 20-something Republicans, will have to help remove him. LOL. That’s not going to happen.

The GOP, has been/should be embarrassed by Trump. But he plays ball. He is their hit man. And they can sever ties with him, and blame him for everything, at any point. He’s a good horse to bet on, for them. And with no real damage to their party, if they blame everything on him. You’ve got to love politics…

Yellowdog's avatar

@MrGrimm888 How could ‘evidence’ point to his guilt? All evidence has done is blow your case out of the water.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^I don’t have a case. Not that would be as bad/worse, than other presidents. I think it’s a waste of time/money. I do think Trump extorted the Ukraine, for political gain.
I’ve already opined, that Biden, should be removed from candidacy, on the same grounds. I think Trump should be ineligible, as well, for 2020.
And that should be the end of it…

stanleybmanly's avatar

The GOP is trapped! Ordinarily I would be the last person on earth to suggest that ethical matters are pertinent to politics. But it is at the interface of ethics and legality where the unethical perish. I am at heart a cynic, but I assure you that Trump is doomed. Just pay attention and watch it all unfold. Systemic corruption must lose in the end, and corruption allied with stupidity hasn’t a prayer.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Trump has no experience with politics, or being POTUS. What he does have, is the fact he’s been sued, or been in court (for one reason or another,) dozens of times.” Good point Grimm. However he learned absolutely zilch from his previous experiences. He simply had the best lawyers money could by, and learned to hide behind them.
He still has the best lawyers…but something is going horribly wrong now.
The fools who are foolish enough to represent him are confronted with equally competent lawyers, or better.
That’s why they keep going to jail.

Yellowdog's avatar

Haven’t any of you learned anything the last three years?

No evidence, no crime.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

None of his lackeys went to jail, right @Yellowdog.

Guilani and Nunes have their phone records (Ukraine _Quid pro quo related) in the impeachment inquiry and they are not not trading recipes for tuna fish sandwiches from April of this year.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Yellowdog It should then follow, that no crime—no criminals. Is this in fact the case? When it comes down to the fact that anyone with the misfortune of having shaken your hand is dependably marched off in handcuffs, what conclusions are to be drawn?

Dutchess_lll's avatar

@Yellowdog..what I’ve learned in the last 3 years is they don’t take prosecuting the president of the United States lightly. They aren’t working nearly quickly enough to suit me…but They know what they’re doing. They know when to hold ‘em…

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Grimmy I think your post is spot on, like it or not.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^I didn’t say that I liked it. But POTUSs have been involved in terrible things. Dem, or rep.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Yellowdog

There’s an awful lot of his lackeys sitting in prison now for “no evidence, no crime”.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Yep. Just no way to pay out.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

^ They have plenty way to pay out. Noone is willing to take the chance anymore.

seawulf575's avatar

@Yellowdog No evidence, no crime. But the Dems have thought of that. Remember Rep Quigley setting the grounds for dealing with that? Hearsay evidence is sometimes better than direct evidence. In other words, they created a justification for not having direct evidence and proceeding anyway.

stanleybmanly's avatar

That’s right! The liberals are making it all up. Why can’t they understand that the fool is genuinely draining the swamp? The proof? Everyone who knows him winds up in jail. What a marvelous method for cleaning up the Republican party!

Yellowdog's avatar

@stanleybmanly What are the liberals making up?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Tump not only allowed a foreign country to intervene in our election, he actively invited it, for his own personal political gain.
No one is making that up. That’s exactly what he did, and it’s an impeachable offense, and he’s going to pay.

Yellowdog's avatar

How could Trump allow another country to intervene in our election?

The Obama cabal was in charge then, and said it couldn’t happen, and that Nunes and the Republicans were living back in the cold war days. We were laughed at and rebuked when we raised concerns about Russian interference and election hacking, right up to just two days before the election.

Remember when Obama told us to quit whining and go out and get votes?

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Remember when Obama tried to give you, and all Americans healthcare?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Obama never said to “quit whining,” and he didn’t say “go out and get votes,” but in 2012 he did say Let’s get out there and vote.

He said this last year.

Dutchess_III's avatar

He didn’t just allow it, he actively invited it @Yellowdog, by asking Ukraine to to get dirt on Biden. He also refused to send aid until they did i t.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@Yellowdog He in public asked Russia to get into Hillary’s emails and DNS’s too. But he’s you hero and can do no wrong!

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III “Tump not only allowed a foreign country to intervene in our election, he actively invited it, for his own personal political gain.”

Of course people are making that up. The Dems have been making that up since he was elected. Remember the entire 2 years of the Russia collusion investigation? Yeah…Trump actively invited Russia to interfere in the election….except he didn’t. This Ukrainian thing is no different. Fess up…your source is Dems, right?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Her source is his own big mouth! I don’t believe there is a soul on this site who hasn’t seen footage of the fool yelling for Russia to get to the bottom of Hillary’s emails, and China to investigate the Bidens.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Trump had no clue what was going on in the 2016 election @seawulf575. None. He was as shocked as every one when he won. He is still absolutely clueless about what he’s doing.
He’s a retard with money…and the likes of you back him up.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Trump publicly asked for Russian intelligence, on Hillary. Joking, or not, he did.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_lll Interesting that you are saying he had no clue what was going on in 2016. Wasn’t it you fools on the left that created that entire narrative that he was nefariously working with Putin to gather dirt on Hillary and to interfere in our election? He wasn’t clueless then, apparently. But once it came out that entire narrative was a lie, now he was clueless. Which is it? And why is this silly narrative any different? It isn’t. It is a story created by the Dems for political gain. They are using Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election and saying it is Trump. Just like the Russia collusion story. But the likes of you believe them blindly and back their stories no matter how silly.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 Let’s be honest about the description. The Dems had already started the narrative that he was working with Russia to steal the election. He made a joke about how silly that was and said if they were trying to interfere maybe they could find the 30,000 emails that Hillary “lost”. The joke was partly about how silly the idea he was working with Russia was, but also pointing to the criminal act of Hillary to destroy evidence….something that seems to always be okay to the left. That is far from “asking Russia” for anything. And here’s another thing that always seems to be ignored by the left. If Hillary’s missing emails are such dirt that could be used against her, what does that say about her? SHE wrote them! If they are that dirty that they could cost her an election or get her in trouble, then maybe she needs to be investigated for real…not the ha-ha investigation that was done. The one that had to ignore the law to let her walk.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

But what about Hillary?

Lame for the hundredth time that you said here ! @seawulf575

She at least sat for testimony for 11 hours; your hero has claimed executive privilege for him and anyone that he had work for him for the last 5 years. No statement no testimony (his lawyers think he’s trip over his own lies).

Dutchess_III's avatar

Has it only been 100 times that he’s said, “BUTTEREMAILS!!”?

Yeah, his lawyers her telling him not to testify. It would be very bad for him to testify.

stanleybmanly's avatar

There’s something decidedly psychotic in the alterations of reality required in defense of the turd. To begin with—there really is no defense—everyone sees it. There can be no debate about WHAT it is. The dispute is over what it has done. While everyone smeared through rubbing up against it is swiftly flushed to prison, the turd stands fixed, profusely whining on its victimization at the hands of those merely rumored “turdlike”, and those rumors promulgated by the turd itself with amplifications by its stinky adherents.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Don’t forget that Trump’s people put this all on a server, and tried to hide it.

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie I’m sorry…wasn’t Hillary brought into this entire discussion? And not by me. But I notice you make my point perfectly. You can’t address the idea that Hillary is claiming to be undermined by the same emails she wrote, but you will go to your grave trying to avoid looking at that. That falls squarely “believing blindly and backing their stories no matter how silly.

MrGrimm888's avatar

The Clintons, were shady as an oak tree. I didn’t trust any of them. Yet. Somehow I loved Bill. He was a super politician. Charismatic, and smart. And, if you look at the numbers, he had the country on the way out of debt. I’m probably just as guilty of supporting him (despite what I knew,) as Trumpers are…

Just being honest…

Dutchess_III's avatar

I liked Bill. He was a good, smart president. I really didn’t care that he carried on with Lewinski. I really don’t care that trump is a whore. JFK screwed around every chance he got. Literally. I would only care if screwing another women endangered the country.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Grimmy Same, I voted for him twice.
I’ll still probably vote Rep in 2020 due to policy.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^That’s your decision.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Of course you are free to vote for whatever canker suits your fancy, but to pass the fool’s disgusting warts off as the fanciful imaginings of the left is dishonest, let alone as stupid as the target of all the derision itself!!! No one need invent what stinky himself so blatantly oozes!

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@seawulf575 May I quote you? ” He made a joke about how silly that was and said if they were trying to interfere maybe they could find the 30,000 emails that Hillary “lost.”

Whatabout Hillary ??

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie May I point out that @MrGrimm888 said:
_”
Trump publicly asked for Russian intelligence, on Hillary. Joking, or not, he did.“_

I was merely responding to him. I didn’t bring Hillary into this, someone else did. Now, care to revise your smarmy comment? Or do you really like making my point for me? You can’t even stay in the conversation because it makes you question your liberal darling. So you have to try making it all about me instead. Whatabout Seawulf???

MrGrimm888's avatar

It was a public statement. And, it didn’t sound like a joke, to me.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

It is crazy how the conservatives jump on the nuances the more well educated and intelligent liberals come up with, or point out, and try to claim the concept as their own.
“So you have to try making it all about me instead. about me instead. Whatabout Seawulf???”
You aren’t Hillary and you aren’t her emails.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 I understand your point, but what I am saying to @Tropical_Willie has nothing to do with the actual statement. It is pointing out that you brought Hillary into the discussion. He tries to deflect from all wrongdoing by Dems and so if I even put Hillary into a comment he starts with these paroxysms of “whataboutism” trying to shut me up. He makes the jump in reality that I tried deflecting the conversation to avoid something when, in fact, he is doing that exact thing.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_lll Your comment shows that you are not in that group of well educated and intelligent liberals. Nor is your reading comprehension anywhere near good. Go back, re-read the thread and you will see you are making my point just as @Tropical_Willie does. My comment to him had nothing to do with Hillary or her e-mails. It had to do with how he tries to deflect all conversation from that by attacking me with his idiotic “whataboutism”. And you are doing the same thing. thanks for playing.

Dutchess_III's avatar

“Trump continues to use his personal cell phone to make official calls, according to a new report. Experts warn that the calls are vulnerable to foreign intelligence agencies, including the Chinese and Russian governments. Even Trump’s call regarding his quid pro quo with Ukraine were likely intercepted.

Remember how Trump and his enablers decried Hillary Clinton’s email server? The hypocrisy is mind-numbing. Trump and his enablers don’t give a fig about national security, and didn’t give a fig about Clinton’s emails as long as it served their political agenda. These people cannot be swept out of office and into the dustbin of history soon enough.” ~ Robert Reich

Dutchess_III's avatar

Here are some words of wisdom from our idiot leader: “We have a situation where we’re looking very strongly at sinks and showers and other elements of bathrooms where you turn the faucet on, in areas where there’s tremendous amounts of water, where the water rushes out to sea because you could never handle it, and you don’t get any water. You turn on the faucet; you don’t get any water. They take a shower and water comes dripping out. It’s dripping out — very quietly dripping out,” he told reporters.”

What?

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III you are definitely too wrapped up in the liberal media innuendo-fest. Yes, there was a report by CNN that Trump has been using his personal cell phone for business. Trump demanded a retraction since he claims he has only been using a government issued/approved cell phone. They did capitulate, though they tried downplaying the alteration.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2019/12/07/trump-demands-cnn-retract-fake-news-story-about-his-cellphone-use-n2557634

Like I said…when you let loose, you fall way short of the well educated and intelligent liberals category. Come to think of it, those terms are sort of an oxymoron, aren’t they?

Dutchess_III's avatar

These are actual quotes, @seawulf575. They aren’t made up. ”“So we’re looking at, very seriously, at opening up the standard. And there may be some areas where we’ll go the other route — desert areas But for the most part, you have many states where they have so much water that it comes down — it’s called rain — that they don’t know, they don’t know what to do with it. So we’re going to be opening up that, I believe. And we’re looking at changing the standards very soon.””

Dutchess_III's avatar

Did you read your own article? They did not capitulate.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Dutchess_III

LOL. He sounds like a 2nd grader trying to bullshit his way through a report on a book he didn’t read.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Here’s the problem @seawulf575. He is making official phone calls from a cell phone. It doesn’t matter if it’s government issued or not. Cell phones are wide open to hacking. They are much more vulnerable than secured landline phones. Everybody and their brother can listen in on his calls. That’s what everyone is trying to explain to him, but he’s to stupid to understand the seriousness of it.
Jesus. They just need to put him in a padded room and leave him there until the elections.

Yellowdog's avatar

Just because Hillary had classified emails on an unsecured server, and got hacked, and deleted her pay-for-play business once they were subpoenaed , does not mean you can arbitrarily make up something similar about Trump and have us believe it.

You are always alleging Trump did something Hillary or Obama or Biden actually DID do, and when someone wants to point that out to you, you say they are deflecting.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III I did read my own article. And it was on Trump using his cell phone…another topic you were trying to use as a dodge. What is your point? You are rambling on about some statement about rain, but there’s a funny thing…you have given no reference at all! What a surprise! A liberal spewing without actually citing anything so no one can point out how odd they are.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III He was using a cell phone. Wonderful. And do you know what sort of protections it has on it? Any encryption? Uhh…no…you have no clue. What you know is that the liberal media tried creating a shit storm by making up a story about Trump using his own personal cell phone. You parroted that information yourself, showing you are willing to believe anything without question. I gave you a citation that showed that Trump called for a retraction on CNN for their bogus reporting (yeah, that same reporting you are parroting) and that they did indeed put forth a half-assed retraction. They changed it from his own personal cell phone to the government issued cell phone issued to the POTUS for use. Huh. So the big story is that Trump uses a cell phone. What an amazing thing. Now you are trying desperately to not look even more foolish (and failing I might add) by making the gross assumption that if he uses any cell phone he is somehow violating something and you are trying to equate that to Hillary creating her own home-grown server for business use. Good job…you have convinced me you have no clue at all and are not able to actually think for yourself. You can only parrot what others tell you.

Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
Dutchess_III's avatar

Yes. He was using a cell phone to discuss classified business. That is the problem. He’s too thick headed to understand that a cell phone, even one issued by the government, is not secure, no matter what encryption they may have, and he should not use a cell phone to discuss secret matters. Those matters should be discussed by secure land line.

That was a bit of blathering about rain, wasn’t it. He’s an idiot. He thinks he’s the only one who understands that Puerto Rico is an island, and water falling from the sky is called “rain.”

He’s just stupid @seawulf575. Why you want to throw your lot in with someone SO stupid is beyond me.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

I’ll provide the source tomorrow when I’m back at my desktop.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_lll It occurs to me that you try to hold Trump to a much higher standard than anyone else and then blast him when he doesn’t meet your standards. I say this because he isn’t the first POTUS to use a cell phone. Obama had one from day one of his election. He had his personal Blackberry upgraded to appropriate security when he was first elected. Then he traded that in on some other smart phone the government issued him. Let me ask…was he just stupid too? Should he be castigated for threatening national security by using what the governmental security folks gave him to use? Let’s see if you are really the hypocrite I believe you are or if you truly believe the tripe you shovel. And trying to say I am deflecting is the same as saying you are a hypocrite since it is the exact same issue, just two different people and I’m trying to see if it is just your blind hatred of Trump speaking.

Response moderated
stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 Blind hatred and hypocrisy? All who read you must pay particular attention to the fact that your introduction of either word into a conversation AWAYS precedes a tour of deflection from the topic at hand to the personality of those in disagreement with you. The combination of both words in adjacent sentences amount to a confession from you of “I have no valid defense of my position” And for you, it is rather telling how often those words pop up. Who hates the fool according to you? Most of Fluther, the ENTIRE field of journalism, the FBI, CIA, the courts, the leadership of every nation in the free world (though you then must explain how the one moment of conviviality among the bunch is in the opportunity for jovial laughter behind the fool’s back), the weather service, in fact the entire civil service operates from the verified dictum of UNEQUIVOCAL Trump hatred.

You, I and Dutch—all of us know the issue isn’t a cell phone. The issue is TRUMP with a cell phone, microphone, megaphone, any implement allowing the insertion of his little foot into his ENORMOUS mouth. In a sense we are probably fortunate that it is yet to be demonstrated that the fool can either read or write. As it is the lack of any filters between his big mouth and what must pass for a mind that renders the ignorant loudmouth the single greatest threat to national security in the country. Did Putin get his money’s worth?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Of course I hold him to a higher standard @seawulf575! He’s our president. That was just dumb.

Anyway, I promised you sources. Here is a video of him blathering about flushing toilets and explaining that rain falls out of the sky. Go to 11:42.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III so Obama was just dumb as well then, right?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Whatabout . . . . . . . .!

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III Did you actually look at the source you supplied? The video is only 2:09 long. I can’t go to 11:42. Sorry. That must be something only educated and intelligent liberals can do? I don’t know. But as for his conversation, I didn’t see the entire press conference…the parts before and after what you supplied. But it seems he is talking about the negative impact of the onerous regulations put in place by Obama on the people and how they are being evaluated as to whether they are needed. And we can all agree with some of them. The LED lightbulbs DO cost more. The fluorescents DO cost more…and have toxic by-products. There are places that are restricted on how much water they can use…for no apparent reason other than trying to meet these random restrictions that were put in place. As for talking about rain, he was obviously making a joke. The people in the room caught it but I’m not surprised you didn’t. MAYBE you need to check your hate at the door once in a while.

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie Why am I not surprised? And I called you on it….before you made your comment.
” And trying to say I am deflecting is the same as saying you are a hypocrite since it is the exact same issue, just two different people and I’m trying to see if it is just your blind hatred of Trump speaking.” So you must be one of those hypocrites too, eh?

Dutchess_III's avatar

That isn’t the one I meant to post, but that video has the same content. You asked for my source (”...you have given no reference at all! What a surprise! A liberal spewing without actually citing anything so no one can point out how odd they are.”), and here it is. Right from the asses mouth.
Deflection in 3…2…1….

seawulf575's avatar

No deflection needed. You gave a source, it was the wrong source, and your response to his comments shows you let your hatred blind you to actual content. You are so busy looking for fault you can’t see things for what they really are. Now…if you disagree with him wanting to revisit the regulations, that is an entirely different conversation. But he certainly wasn’t blathering and he was making perfect sense.

seawulf575's avatar

And my comment stands. You finally provided a source and I showed you how odd your response was.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Earlier, before you knew it came from trump blathering, you said it was rambling.. But now it makes sense? What is wrong with you?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@seawulf575 May quote you (oh know you hated it) ”@Dutchess_III so Obama was just dumb as well then, right?”

So whatabout Barry?? ? ?

You cannot leave Barry, Hillary, Joe . . . . out of your imagined defense for the bad hair-doo President.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I wonder why that is.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Whatever the reason, it is a ploy every bit as hopeless as the charges of hatred and hypocrisy. It is beyond juvenile obstinance to drag up ANY public figure on the premise that they are “as dumb as Trump”. It just can’t be done. To stand in front of the turd and trot Obama out as yardstick of positive reference is so insufferably dishonest that it insults all who hear it.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Interesting how he trots out the more intelligent public figures, and not the likes of GW Bush! Who is head and shoulders above trump.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^That’s just sad. I used to hate G.W. Until I realized that Cheney was manipulating him. I think GW, now realizes that, and isn’t pleased with it. GW, was a different animal. He failed upward. He was a figure head. A puppet, for Cheyney, and the GOP. In a way, he was a victim…
Trump, is no victim.
But it is a sad day, when American people would prefer him, over anyone else.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

The thing is Bush Jr. was no more than a puppet. But he was a puppet of men and women who had the best interests of America at heart. He was a willing puppet. He listened carefully.
Trump is a loose cannon who has no idea what is going on.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_lll Again…your reading comprehension shows where you fall on the “educated and intelligent liberals” scale. I didn’t call Trump’s conversation rambling, I called YOUR comments rambling.
“You are rambling on about some statement about rain, but there’s a funny thing…you have given no reference at all! ”
You even gave me the link to the comment. So either you didn’t read it or you just can’t comprehend what you read. Once you supplied a link, THEN I commented about what Trump said. And it makes sense to me. So in answer to your lame attempt at a “gotcha!” You were rambling, Trump made sense.

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie Yep. I mentioned Barry. gasp! That isn’t a deflection…it is an effort to point out that the hatred @Dutchess_lll shows towards Trump is nothing more than that since Trump’s predecessor did the exact same thing she is calling Trump an idiot for. It is perfectly in line with the conversation. If a president is an idiot for using a cell phone, have others done that? It is called a logical step. Not that I expect you to understand logic. You are too busy trying to avoid looking too closely at your liberal darlings. Your hatred and fear come out with every syllable you type.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Sir you think you are the smartest person on Fluther besides you think you are perfect.

You can’t stop deflecting. Even when you are deflecting, you say that is not what you are doing. Illogical on your part.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I quoted trump word for word. You called it “rambling.”

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III Until you gave some reference to show you were quoting him word for word, I have no other option than to assume it is your ramblings. If you notice, when you gave the reference, I watched it and commented on it. And in the end, you tried saying that I was saying he was rambling. You can’t even follow the conversation. SMH.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Do you realize how convoluted your arguments are? Those sentences were rambling. They were nonsensical. It doesn’t matter who said them, they were absurd.
I’m thinking that belief in trump destroys brain cells.

seawulf575's avatar

Do you realize how hate filled you are? When you watch Trump talking and saying the things you call rambling, you should realize there is actually a message there. There is an actual topic. Some things he says as jokes…and the people in the crowd recognize them as such and chuckle. Too bad you are so wrapped up with your hatred that you can’t actually relate to people on a sane level.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I am not ashamed to say I actually hate the fat, orange rapist. He’s a a walking, talking, blathering scam.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Just tell us how you really feel.~

stanleybmanly's avatar

The man is hateful in speech & deed. He iS DEFINED by EVERYTHING everyone here has been taught from birth to avoid and reject. The smokewulf NEVER. denies this. But hatred of the fool is irrational. It’s equivalent to a professed irrational resentment of snakes or tornadoes. And it allows the intellectually shortchanged and cognitively lazy to dismiss the hateful truths concerning the fool and switch the subject to YOUR blind hatred.” It is a tactic preferred by people who are either stupid or dishonest in defense of what is at heart indefensible. You should NEVER read any posting from smokewulf, without asking yourself “what would the Russians think?” In fact, go through his posts on this very thread, and wonder what you suppose the Russians want you to think. And remember, the odds are that Trump probably has no more control over what he is than that snake or tornado.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

I would suspect Wulf is a Russian plant except for the fact that the idea of the Russians planting a troll on Fluther is absurd.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Don’t fool yourself. I believe it possible that our wolfie might well be a composite of several people. His writing skills have improved considerably in 2 years. And he has advanced past the open giveaways that are whopping tells that he cannot be a man reared here unless it was in a cave. I can readily imagine a disinformation mill sending people here to hone their skills. You know damned well they are entrenched in whatever places wolfie retrieves his disinformation.

stanleybmanly's avatar

And it doesn’t matter if the Russians sent him. What matters is that he is working for them whether he knows it or not. So is he a dupe or a plant? I prefer to think him an operative. The other choice is almost too sad to contemplate.

seawulf575's avatar

Careful @Dutchess_lll you are becoming more and more like @stanleybmanly with his obsessions.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Too bad for you and whoever pays you. You will soon come to understand why my “obsessions” must bear up. The dems can’t loose. Just watch! It no longer matters whether the Senate convicts the fool THIS time. The allegations against the fool are so numerous and extensive that he will never see another day in office when the House committees aren’t holding hearings on the turd’s misbehavior. Even were the premise true that the dems are merely looking for an excuse to hang the dummy, he has already provided them enough fuel to perpetually roast his orange ass on the spit of impeachment as more of his crimes are exposed daily. A day can’t pass without another of his close allies being exposed for the criminals they all are. Giuliani’s on his way to prison as sure as you’re born. The constant exposure of Trump insiders bedding up with Russian thugs, the coming exposure of the fool’s tax liabilities, the plethora of criminal investigations of the fool in Federal, State and municipal jurisdictions nation wide—the sheer magnitude of it all concentrates in the current impeachment spectacle which is merely the next act in the spectacular show to follow. And there’s no winning for the Republicans in the hopeless defense of the TURD. Just watch what happens to the Republican party in the run up to 2020. The longer that party hangs on to the hopeless defense of the monstrous turd, the greater the carnage to the party and its adherents. And all of it on the proposition that an unmitigated turd might be innocent of marked turdlike behavior! I’ll put my money on my nose. The day of reckoning approaches.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, it’s down to two impeachable offenses: Abuse of power & obstruction of justice.
He has also been labeled a “Clear and present danger” to the United States.
Clear and present danger was a doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine under what circumstances limits can be placed on First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, or assembly.”

Wikipedia

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly Well gee…all very interesting, yet you have been wrong over and over again. And besides, the Dems just gave Trump the get out of jail free card. He is running for POTUS in 2020. Apparently, if any Dem dares to use their public office to look into any wrongdoing by Trump it is abuse of power, right? That is, after all, what they are saying. Joe Biden is exempt from any investigation because he claims to be running for POTUS so any political rival is barred from using public office to investigate his potential crimes. The Dems have set the standard they want to play by. In fact, I suggest we ought to bring charges of abuse of power against Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi for starters. They are, after all, using the power of their office for political gain.

Dutchess_III's avatar

They brought two articles of impeachment against him today @seawulf575. Abuse of power & obstruction of Congress.
He’s going down. And none too soon for me.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III I really do feel sorry for you. While it is likely the Dems will vote party instead of conscience and vote for impeachment, it is highly unlikely the Senate will convict. And when that fails to happen, not only will he still be POTUS, but he will be able to run again in 2020 and will likely win. And you will get to enjoy another 4 years of seething hatred.

Dutchess_III's avatar

We’ll see.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 You can pretend that I’ve been wrong over and over, but the disgust with your turd only continues to accumulate as the stockpile of crimes piles up around stinky. The Repubs may very well let the fool off the hook THIS time, but sooner than later the bunch of spineless cowards will suffer the consequences of having buried their collective noses up Trump’s ass. The house has the fool by the throat, and for the remainder of his time in office will shake him like a pit bull with a rag doll. As I told you 3 years ago, a mountainous turd the size of Trump could not possibly survive 4 years without impeachment, and thus it has come to pass. The saga unfolds exactly as I told you it would, only not as swiftly as Stinky deserves. But Trump’s numbers are headed inexorably in only one direction as the daily scandal laden revelations mount in hearings that are never going away. If he lasts til November, the price to Repubs will be a national election with their party reduced to wreckage from through the hopeless strategy of denying that the turd bedeviling us all IS indeed a turd.

Dutchess_III's avatar

What I can’t understand is how some people just didn’t see this coming before he ever got elected. Are they blind? Deaf? Stupid?

stanleybmanly's avatar

He has engendered some VERY useful mischief to some rather onerous people in his extended suicide mission. Massive tax cuts for the rich and corporations, relentless pounding on the poor—you know—the standard conservative drill. Once again, the useful idiot only more crude and idiotic than the usual.

MrGrimm888's avatar

If @seawulf575 , was a Russian agent, why would he bother to contribute to non-political threads? I’ve seen him offer insightful/helpful advice on multiple occasions, in threads that are about personal issues, and even offer anecdotal responses, on other threads…

I don’t usually agree with his political views. But a third of America does. Are they ALL Russian agents?

Dutchess_lll's avatar

It was tongue in cheek y all

MrGrimm888's avatar

I get piled on, from time to time, just for being genuine. I believe that goes against the very idea, of such a forum, and it’s no fun for anyone being attacked, or following the thread…

If we aren’t careful, we’ll lose the wulf. Then this won’t be a debate forum, it’ll be an echo chamber…

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@stanleybmanly I think what @seawulf575 is trying say is the GOP is happy as a clam with their dictator wannabe, because he supports the GOP’s backwards way of doing things and they can’t wait for the return to the 1850’s (not a typo), woman’s rights in question, people of color discriminated against and return to isolationism.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Did Putin get what he paid for ? ?

Yellowdog's avatar

Why would Putin want Donald J. Trump to be president? Isn’t that a conflict of interest?

How could they be helping Hillary’s team with the dossier if they wanted Trump? How would ANY of Trump’s policies or actions benefit Putin?

stanleybmanly's avatar

You mean policies like withdrawing U S troops and supports from Syria? Or withholding weapons from Ukranians resisting Russian invasion? How about the facilitating of Russian kleptocrats through the laundering of looted money through “investment” in Trump’s tacky real estate?

Yellowdog's avatar

Actually, Obama withheld aid and disarmed the Ukraine and the Russians took Crimea. Trump restored aid and missiles to the Ukraine. Turkey is no longer invading Syria. Lots of Russians died when Trump released the Tomahawk missiles. I really don’t think your rhetoric is supported by the realities of the past three years.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@Yellowdog You didn’t answer @stanleybmanly
.
.
.
.
.
you only deflected ! ! !

Turkey killed as many Kurds as they wanted and Trump got a building permit for a Trump resort in Ankara Turkey in return for US leaving the Kurd’s territory.

Putin wants to destabilize the USA and you are happy with Trump in Hitler’s clothes.

Get ready for reductions in money for veterans and the disabled ! He has to pay for the wall, cause Mexico must of reneged on paying for it ‘cause he said “Mexico will pay for it!” would while he was campaigning.

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie Yes, @Yellowdog did answer @stanleybmanly. The fact that Obama was mentioned once again triggers your fear factor and sends you screaming about deflection. @Yellowdog pointed out that what @stanleybmanly was saying is nothing but liberal rhetoric. That’s basically all any of you have…liberal talking points. Which, by the way, are exactly what Putin wants the most…a bunch of people pushing rhetoric that will help destroy this nation. As you called it…destabilizing the USA. And as I mentioned before, that puts you FAR closer to working for Russia than I…that you are doing Putin’s work for him. Liberal projectionism at it’s best. So…are YOU the chef? Maybe the chauffeur?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Another paragraph of silly drivel. The bottom line is that Putin prefers Stinky and so do you. By now the love affair between Putin & our fool is so embarrassingly obvious that the collusion issue is once more bubbling up to bite Stinky and will be a big feature in his trial. Chauffeurs and chefs aren’t relevant here. You function here as Putin’s whore, and the only question is whether or not you are being paid for your services. The others here believe you deserve the benefit of the doubt, and there are some admirable defenders of your utility to this site which is so decidedly slanted against STINKY the turd. But I would have more respect for you were you being paid for dissembling your nonsense. If you actually believe the crap you peddle here, there can be nothing for you but my pity. Either way, you are guaranteed my lingering enthusiastic contempt and all the ridicule you so richly deserve.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly The bottom line is that you SAY Putin prefers Trump. Yet let’s review the actual facts. Putin wants to see the glory days of Socialism and the USSR return. That sounds amazingly like you. You have voiced strong beliefs in Socialism. Trump has put stronger sanctions in place against Russia than we have ever put in place before. That doesn’t sound like something you do to a guy/country that you like or that you are getting help from. On the other hand, Hillary, who was the other option for POTUS, helped sell our uranium rights to Russian oligarchs. That is something Putin would really like to see in our White House….someone that gives him stuff for personal gain. And Hillary was pushing the Socialism angles as well. And you are a huge Hillary fan, so you would be much more of a Putin boy than I would. Hillary was campaigning on an accelerated version of Obama policies. One of those policies withheld realistic military aid to Ukraine and allowed Russia to invade and hold Crimea. And you are a big Obama fan. Putin would love to see our nation fall apart and collapse. He would be able to make great strides in control of the world or at least in expanding his own area of control. And it is the Dems/liberals that are working overtime to split this nation along any and all fault lines they can find or make. And you are most definitely a Dem/Lib.
So you claim Putin loves Trump, yet have nothing that backs that statement up. Yet you use that statement to claim I am a Putin favorite as well. Yet everything that Putin would want or that would benefit him has nothing to do with Trump or with my view on things. Yet it has everything to do with your own toxic outlook and that of your little monkey, @Tropical_Willie.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Putin has nothing but utter contempt for his puppet. There is no “like” any where, by any one, for trump.

Now the idiot has gone off and made himself Thanos with magic powers.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 It floors me that you insist on discussing things you clearly do not understand and so readily commit passionately to ridiculous notions as “actual facts”. You and I have been going at this for better than 2 years, and to this day you have yet to get a clue on the actual meaning of socialism. You have no idea just how appallingly ignorant and inaccurate the statement that “Putin wants to see the glory days of Socialism and the USSR return”. That is such a glaring distortion of the truth that it can only result from sheer unadulterated ignorance. Putin is about as close to being a socialist as you are to a Rhodes scholarship. Putin would prefer a powerful RUSSIA, and would gladly seize the former lands comprising the Soviet Union to achieve it, but he is every bit as adverse to socialism as your ignorant ass. It is an error of fact so profound that anything following it based on the assumption is rendered patently absurd. Putin is in fact the world’s leading exponent of what can only be described as strong arm gangster capitalism, which is EXACTLY what he and Stinky have in common and EXACTLY why the turd must be stopped.

MrGrimm888's avatar

How would “spreading” socialism, help Russia?

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 for one, it would weaken our position as an economic leader in the world. That was what we used to win the cold war…our economy was stronger than theirs. If it is spreading socialism in the areas around Russia, it makes it easier to combine those nations in with Russia…again. I can see several things to gain from it.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^I respect your opinion. But I disagree heavily. Russian winters, are especially cruel. I see no benefits of not helping people through it. As for America, I again, see no reason to not help people survive….
No disadvantages….

stanleybmanly's avatar

Putin doesn’t give a shit about ideology, and neither does the United States. The bugaboo of capitalism vs socialism was a great ruse for recruiting cannon fodder, enabling American aggression and enriching defense contractors, And our cemeteries are packed with the remains of those tricked into believing they saved this place from communism. Anyone walking the earth today susceptible to the argument that the struggle in the world is about capitalist freedom vs socialist slavery. Is naive beyond hope. So here we sit with the likes of the distort laden smoke wolf raving about the threat of socialism and deriding such concepts as foreign aid while the number one recipient of our capitalist tax dollars by far is the greatest example of socialist engineering on the planet——Israel. My tax dollars guaranteeing universal government funded healthcare for every Israeli while the turd here takes an ax too Medicaid.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Putin wants the turd in place to facilitate his ambitions. He along with the other thugs are particularly vexed with the problem of where to park the wealth looted from the former Soviet Union. Putin in effect has duplicated the feat of his capitalist counterparts in the West—he looted the people, only he did it all at once in contrast to our own long term transfer of wealth.. Trump is the perfect stooge for Putin’s ambitions. A man clearly devoid of any ethical considerations and dumb as a brick. I have absolutely no doubt that in the coming months it will be revealed that the bulk of our turd’s net worth will turn out to be Russian money laundered through his tacky real estate schemes.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 One thing that everyone seems to forget about Socialism….the wealth distribution. Those in charge are always wealthier than the norm. They control more power even though it is, ideally, not supposed to be that way. That is why those in power like the idea of Socialism and Putin is no exception.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Those in power? Are you telling us the turd prefers socialism? You are priceless in your lack of understanding. “Those in power like the idea of socialism”. ??? Those in power WHERE?

MrGrimm888's avatar

We already have lots of “socialist” programs, running in America. It has NOT hurt the country.
Universal health care, for instance, would benefit ALL. It would only harm giant pharmaceutical companies. And FUCK them…

Darth_Algar's avatar

Not quite sure how it would hurt pharmaceutical companies. Their products are being purchased either way. It would, however, hurt the for-profit insurance companies.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Universal health care means the government would be forcing those overblown, outrageous prices down.

Darth_Algar's avatar

Maybe, maybe not.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Maybe yes…

Darth_Algar's avatar

You act as if the government has qualms about spending massive amounts of money, especially to enrich large corporations.

Yellowdog's avatar

@Dutchess_lll Universal Health Care would mean generic medicine produced in the most inexpensive ways possible, and extremely high taxes. Even if one is rich, they will be relegated to poor coverage, prioritizing of care, long waits, and probably-inferior medications.

Obama promised the average health care costs for the average family would go down $2,400 annually, but it went up about that much for almost everyone, with high deductibles and less coverage.

The poor in this country, like me, are all currently covered by medicare. It may not be fair to you, but those of us who cannot pay, are covered.

Dutchess_III's avatar

The Canadians say that isn’t true @Yellowdog.
I would expect taxes to go up, but I believe it would be offset by a) No insurance deductibles, and b) no medical bills. I currently have about $4,000 in medical bills and I’m having a hard time.
I had a procedure done last May. I got a bill for $44,000! That’s more than I owe on my house! Along with that was a note from the insurance company who said they didn’t think the surgery was necessary. Well, shit people. It certainly wasn’t cosmetic!
I talked to the hospital and they’re resubmitting it. If the insurance company stands firm I’ll be in bankruptcy.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I had a DVT, when I was in my early 20’s. A week in the hospital, and 6 months of blood testing = over $80,000. At the time, I was making about $11,000, a year. It could be opined, that it changed my life. The bills piled up. When it was over, I owed over $100,000. They sent me bills, saying they’d accept a check for the total. Lol.

It has been a long time, of having trouble finding a place to rent, and has put me against the wall. I’m supposed to go to the ER, if I feel pain there, again. I have constant pain, in my left leg. It could kill me, at any time.

It just happened.

So. My life has been in shambles since. And every day that leg hurts. My credit is a disaster. My whole life, has been made into an obstacle course, financially.
When I look at how much money is spent on our military, and how much money we give to “aid” foreign countries, it makes me sick.
At this point, I have to wait until I am potentially dying, and go to the ER.
That’s my health care plan.

I’m not alone.

We have the resources to help this problem. But we spend the money on other things…

Dutchess_III's avatar

That’s right.

Yellowdog's avatar

No it’s NOT right! The RIGHT thing would be to spend it on health care instead of said other things,

MrGrimm888's avatar

So. Why claim taxes, would be be higher?

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Because it’s not free. It’s paid for the same way the schools get paid for, with taxes.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I understand that. But reallocation, of tax money, would solve this problem. As would government pressure on big pharmaceutical companies, to lower prices…
Universal health care, could be accomplished, without raising taxes. Well. Taxes should be raised, on the wealthy. That would help too. Abolish Trump’s tax cuts. Spend WAY less on military. Huge cuts , to “aid,” to Israel. There are many ways to get it done…

Yellowdog's avatar

People need those tax cuts, @MrGrimm888 Most people are struggling, and need the money for themselves and the nation needs consumers to run the U.S. economy—not to pay for everyone who wants to come here’s health care.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Love you YD. But I disagree. You need to consider, that a healthy population is important. A large amount of unhealthy people, could pose a risk to national security. They are more likely to spread a pandemic, than a healthy population.

Darth_Algar's avatar

The wealthy need tax cuts. The poor need crippling debt from medical treatment.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

^ And that is exactly what is happening.

Yellowdog's avatar

Then why aren’t you happy?

MrGrimm888's avatar

I ain’t happy, because of the reasons I listed. I have no health care, and Israel has it, in part because of our contributions.
That’s fucking great . And they oppress Palestinians. Hypocrisy, and bullshit rule. While I’m stuck in financial ruin….Need I say much more?....

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 Reallocation of tax dollars would not solve the problem. Take a look at the “Medicare-for-all” plan Elizabeth Warren proposed, which mimics the one Bernie Sanders proposed. It would basically equate to ⅓ of total federal spending for the next decade. Possibly more. So yeah, we could give everyone free healthcare (which may or may not be as good as what they have now and they would have no way to buy health insurance as most other countries with socialized medicine allow), but military, education, welfare and other entitlement programs, social security and every other government program would have to be cut to support it. And that is all even with the proposed cuts in costs Warren suggested which would probably not pan out to where she wanted them to go. The only way to get the funds available to make this happen would be to greatly boost up the taxes on everyone, including the poor and middle class people. Picture your taxes suddenly going up from 20% to 50% of your income. How does that fit into your budget? Think you could survive a 30% pay cut? Most people couldn’t…except the wealthy. But Warren wants to tax the wealthy even more so it’s a wash in the end. And with the increase in taxes, the costs of goods and services would go up as well so the severely cut take-home pay you are getting will now be able to buy even less than if no prices changed. It would effectively be like giving you a 50% pay cut.
So a healthy population is important, but if they can’t eat or afford housing or clothes how long do they stay healthy?

stanleybmanly's avatar

The question of the enormous tax increases necessary to provide universal health care must be stacked against the current extraordinary and rising expense of health insurance in the country already. But worse, we must factor into this the huge numbers of people in the current setup that “fall through the cracks”. It isn’t just that many are frozen out of insurance coverage, but millions WITH coverage are confronted with being forced to choose between eating and their overpriced medications and procedures. As a society we are increasingly being confronted with the question of the extent of the obligation of us all regarding the well being of the individual. We are committed for example to disallow any one of us regardless of how reprehensible to die in front of the rest of us ignored and unattended on the public streets. The question then becomes whether healthcare should be a right to which we are all entitled and if so, should the obligation fall on the society overall to provide and enforce it. I say that the obligation MUST fall on us ALL.

MrGrimm888's avatar

#Stan2020….

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly Sooo….you are good with your taxes going up to 60% of your pay?

seawulf575's avatar

Let’s do some math, shall we? Let’s set up some of the variables first. There are approximately 131M full time working Americans. https://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/ There are approximately 330M people living in the US. That may not include the millions of illegals living here as well, but we will go with that number. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/ That means 131M/330M = right at about 40% of the population actually is paying taxes for the entire 100% to benefit from. Now let’s assume most of them are already supporting their families, though I’m sure there are many singles working as well. The current average full time pay in the US is $886/week, or right around $46,000/year. https://www.statista.com/statistics/185279/median-weekly-earnings-of-full-time-wage-and-salary-workers-by-ethnicity/ The current federal tax rate for someone making $46,000/yr is 22% https://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-brackets.aspx That means right off the bat, before the worker sees a single penny for themselves, they are currently paying $10,000 to just the federal government. There are still state income taxes, property taxes, license taxes, sales taxes, etc to pay. This comes out to be $2856.02 per capita. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels_in_the_United_States But we said only 40% of the population is working, so that means that on average, each of those working will pay an additional $7100/year in taxes. So now we are at $46,000–1700 = $29,000/year to live on. So going with E.Warren’s suggestion of Medicare for all since that is close to what you are talking about, we know it would be so costly, it would cost ⅓ of the current federal budget to run. We also know, per her own admission, it would cost around 2M jobs due to putting people working with insurance out of work. The government cannot survive with all the current programs and regulation and oversight and control if they suddenly have to pay that much just to one program. And we also know from history that the politicians will not cut programs. So the only other option is to raise taxes. Yes, I know…tax the rich. But even that won’t get you close to where you want to be. So income taxes will go up across the board. I would say that it would have to go up at least 50% higher to account for the increase. That means if you are working, you are now going to pay an additional 11% of your pay which means you will pay an additional $5000/year in taxes at least. So your take home…what you get to live on…is now only $24,000/year. Now, I don’t know your financial situation, but my income couldn’t take that sort of hit. Yes, I pay for health insurance, but right now I split the cost with my employer. So I pay much less than $5000/year in premiums.

stanleybmanly's avatar

You are ignoring the fact that your current insurance bill combined with that of your employer—$10,000 added to your current taxes almost certainly amounts to a total exceeding that 60% that frightens you. But your calculation ignores the fact that the health insurance bill you currently split with your employer will be eliminated. If your taxes are elevated $7500, and you and your employer each see that $5000 in insurance fees eliminated, your employer can raise your salary some $4000 and still come out 1000 dollars ahead. Or at the bare minimum your employer could raise your salary $2500 & pocket $2500 extra leaving you with no increase in costs. Personally, I believe the government should mandate that you as employee should receive the $4000 while the employer gets the $1000

MrGrimm888's avatar

I find it interesting, that most Americans, would fight to the death, if we were invaded. They would risk their own lives, to protect our homeland, and it’s citizens. But, they won’t put an extra dime, into taxes, that would save the same people…

So. They would give their lives, but not their money? ...

WTF?

stanleybmanly's avatar

There is little doubt that Americans do not understand the waste resulting from our convoluted insurance system. From a competitive standpoint our businesses are at a huge disadvantage having the expense of juggling the insurance nightmares of their employees, while major employers of those at the bottom are allowed to duck any insurance obligation whatsoever to their employees. The mightmare of injustices and scandalous inefficiencies plaguing our setup take a huge toll on our economy, and our tragic health statistics in comparison with other first world nations are matched only by the crippling expense to our participants.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Have you decided who is going to get your vote @stanleybmanly?

stanleybmanly's avatar

I don’t think it’s possible yet to determine who will remain standing. I have a great deal of certainty as to whom I intend to vote against.

Yellowdog's avatar

There was a period of time when Michael Avanotti was strongly supported by the Dems and their media. If you can’t get him overturned, Hillary Clinton, if she should run, is your best bet, followed closely by Joe Biden.

Dutchess_III's avatar

We’ve already figured out that Hillary is a no go because of fools who buy into the rumor mills. I think she would be a good president. Her husband was one of the best.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther