• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 2503 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I am attempting to ascertain what your point is and what sorts of behavior you believe is corrupt. Not possible with yes or no.
Nah, you had your chance. Off to the NN zone with you.


You enjoy seeing innocent people you don't like thrown in jail.

There were people like that in Germany in the 1930's too.
Godwin's law.

It is almost like Xmas today.

View: https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1195388269606981638
 
Oct 28, 2019
71
25
230
Interesting. I this where we want to go as a Country?

Potential tax rates over 100% could result from the combination of tax increases the Massachusetts senator proposes for the very top tier of investors. She wants to return the top income-tax rate to 39.6% from 37%, impose a new 14.8% tax for Social Security, add an annual tax of up to 6% on accumulated wealth and require rich investors to pay capital-gains taxes at the same rates as other income even if they don't sell their assets.


Consider a billionaire with a $1,000 investment who earns a 6% return, or $60, received as a capital gain, dividend or interest. If all of Ms. Warren's taxes are implemented, he could owe 58.2% of that, or $35 in federal tax. Plus, his entire investment would incur a 6% wealth tax, i.e., at least $60. The result: taxes as high as $95 on income of $60 for a combined tax rate of 158%.

The rate would vary according to the investor's circumstances, any state taxes, the profitability of his investments and as-yet-unspecified policy details, but tax rates of over 100% on investment income would be typical, especially for billionaires.


Original article is fire-walled at WSJ.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/some-would-be-taxed-over-100-under-elizabeth-warrens-plan/
 
Many many tidbits:
All Americans deserve to know who is paying their President,and how much,and why.
All Americans deserve to know if their President is paying taxes.
All Americans deserve to know if Hunter Biden has committed a crime. It is contrary to the modern world,where you can sit on the toilet,order food swipe left or right to accept or deny a sex partner, book cars, hotels and airline tickets..but our government has made the determination of facts done only in series. The Congress and Justice department are so corrupt that first Trump's fate must be determined before any further action is taken.
trying to find out if a Biden took a bribe while trying to track Trump trades for arms, murdered kids and journalists is into the red line of the Republicans capabilities. Moscow Mitch says in the new government order he writes something on a bar napkin, if Trump approves whatever, they will move forward..otherwise why bother. Others say that they won't read the facts because Trump told them not to.
So we are only capable of answering one question at a time.
Did Trump act in bad faith? The answer is a resounding yes.
Is it against Presidential law? No.
Why because the body entrusted to conduct the trial phase of all things Presidential has said that he will not be convicted of anything period. With a special emphasis on the upcoming election.

In California this is a primary reason for major fvck. ups. You elect people to take care of things,roads,parks,schools,energy,utilities,police and fire..other things for the common good.
If anything looks like a political hand grenade, the politicians play the way too often used wild card,
Let the voters decide.
So if a dam needs to be built,nobody has the courage to take an action that by design will have a measure of unpopularity.
Need tax money? For whatever?
Nobody has the guts to make tough choices.
Congress is supposed to do it's work even if that is unpopular. The guilt or innocence of Trump doesn't have a built in constitutional deferment. Nobody wants to even go on record for the evidence for fear of turning on Trump on purpose or by accident.
But as it goes, the Republicans have seen Trumps deeds and are going to not write down or say anything aloud and instead hope that the American electorate was either too busy to read facts or that other group that doesn't care about them..
None of the persistent Donald defenders here rebutted that Trump is disqualified from being an elementary school teacher..
He couldn't work in the upper part of the military ranks or defense department or DOD contracting..
And why?
Have you seen what happens to teachers that are accused of multiple sexual misconduct claims? How about porn ..or porn star affiliation? Can you imagine Trump in front of a group of young mothers defending his job, when faced with " grab em' by the pussy!! ".
Trump trying to get a security clearance a multiple bankrupt court cases w totals near three quarters of a billion dollars. Or telling security officials that he doesn't feel like turning over financial and tax records.
And Donald filling out sensitive security documents that say he never met with any Russians..only to find out he was lying..not only no job of rank but jail or fines or both for lying on documents.
This guy is a scum scam bag
 
Reactions: Koronin and gobuck
Strange day today. Infantile people, "opponents" of a career State Department employee and extremely valuable US asset mocked her for work in Somalia and Ukraine and for her alleged "bad hair". Both parties made fairly infantile assertions. One plays at being the President of the US and defender of American interests, the other is an emergent domestic troll in our little cycling community.
Who said what?
a)Bad hair
b)Bad Ambassador
 
Trump has eliminated life for all Republicans who plan to stay. If the evidence is presented and the only option The Donald approves is everything is completely false,everyone is wrong except him nothing is likely to damage the country more than another ..all or nothing..Trump choice.
And what will be the confirmation of the other branches?
Roger Stone is now done. Lied to everyone, threatened a judge,intimidated witnesses and acted in contempt of court before,during and after his trial.
Will Trump respect the law? The judges? The prosecutors? The jurors?
Or will be squat and squirt on other institutions that don't fall in line with Trump University doctrine?
Will Trump find fault with everyone except for Roger Stone?
Will that Richard Nixon tattoo start to see the quantity and quality of other Dicks that he never saw because of Gerald Ford and the misplaced pardon?

The only political wish I really have is for any non forgiving Democrat to take office ship Trump gets tried for his offenses.
Like I say always about Trump ,there is a logical legal reasoning behind his decision to talk about suing everyone,but bringing lawsuits against nobody. He will pulverize himself during discovery.
After leaving office it will be of little importance for him to be convicted of anything,as long as the public can see him answer questions about his conduct.
All the trial that any of us need.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-HPqga6eO1U
 
How's your impeachment circus going?

Any more fourth hand 'witnesses' who'll testify about something they read in the New York Times?
Going quite well, thanks..nice trumpista talking points..do you have the GOP BS as a bookmark? Thought so..

Mulvaney, "that's why the money was withheld"..not exactly 4th hand.
Plus, another charge for your boy donnie, witness tampering...

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/470734-trump-opens-new-line-of-impeachment-attack-for-democrats

You forgot..the 'jordan defense'...Was the aid released?? Were any investigations started??

Kinda like..'Give me $500,000 or I'll blow up your building'..then sting busts the bribery 'suspect'..I guess he goes off scott free eh??
 
Last edited:
Roger Stone is broke. Where's your evidence of payment?
Roger Stone showed your boy lied on his 'written responses' in the Mueller investigation..ooopsie.

How classy...don is such a gentleman...nope, he's a clown, dope, criminal.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/15/trump-slams-marie-yovanovitch-during-her-testimony-in-house-impeachment-inquiry/

his boy(and yours?), rudy gets caught smearing the ambassador for putting the heat on 2 of rudy's buddies...hmm, why that has 'US National Interest' written all over it, right?
Nope..

#trumphastogo
#rudyisacrook
 
Ghost there are a few things that are absolute. During this Trump circus..Nobody innocent is in jail.
no matter who is right or wrong about how or why accusations were made..Mueller or anyone else..unimportant.
Manafort lied.
Trump Jr. lied.
Gates lied.
Jared Kushner lied.Cohen,Flynn all confirmed liars.
And now Roger Stone convicted for lying.
And because of the long standing tradition, Trump's lie counter will rack up 5 digit totals so far.
Trump trying to intimidate witnesses is truly disgusting and disturbing. How he can bully a woman in real time as she testified is wrong on every level. A new low for all of us.
 
Oct 28, 2019
71
25
230
[
Ghost there are a few things that are absolute. During this Trump circus..Nobody innocent is in jail.
no matter who is right or wrong about how or why accusations were made..Mueller or anyone else..unimportant.
Manafort lied.
Trump Jr. lied.
Gates lied.
Jared Kushner lied.Cohen,Flynn all confirmed liars.
And now Roger Stone convicted for lying.
And because of the long standing tradition, Trump's lie counter will rack up 5 digit totals so far.
Trump trying to intimidate witnesses is truly disgusting and disturbing. How he can bully a woman in real time as she testified is wrong on every level. A new low for all of us.
Nonsense. The good Ambassador had 1. given her deposition already 2. was in the middle of testimony and but for Schiff reading the tweet would not have known about it until the her show was over. Disturbing? Show me where, specifically, there is intimidation.

Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.

....They call it “serving at the pleasure of the President.” The U.S. now has a very strong and powerful foreign policy, much different than proceeding administrations. It is called, quite simply, America First! With all of that, however, I have done FAR more for Ukraine than O.


<gasping> I truly am clutching my pearls.

Speaking of witness intimidation, or preparation (take your pick);

Appearing on MSNBC on Sept. 17, the California Democrat was asked directly if there had been previous contact with the whistleblower.

“We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to,” Schiff responded. “But I am sure the whistleblower has concerns that he has not been advised, as the law requires, by the inspector general or the director of national intelligence just how he is supposed to communicate with Congress, and so the risk to the whistleblower is retaliation.”

The fact-checker called his statement “flat-out false.”

On Wednesday, it was reported that Schiff did, in fact, know details about the whistleblower’s complaint against the president before it was formally filed. The whistleblower reached out and made contact with one of the committee aides beforehand; that aide, in turn, told Schiff about the conversation but reportedly didn’t reveal the whistleblower’s identity.



Chairman Schiff is a fact witness in his own impeachment inquiry. Fair only in the sphere hyper-partisan politics.




Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
Adam Schiff
John Kerry
Eric Holder
Nancy Pelosi
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
Loretta Lynch
Bill Clinton
Elizabeth Warren
Joe Biden
Hunter Biden
Kamala Harris
Pete Buttigieg
Corey Booker
Amy Klobuchar
Christine Blasey-Ford
Nancy Pelosi
Bernie Sanders
Susan Rice
James Comey
James Clapper
John Brennan
Samantha Power
Bruce Orr
Nellie Orr
Tom Perez

The monumental liars list is so, so very long.
 
Last edited:
Oct 28, 2019
71
25
230
Going quite well, thanks..
I'm glad you think so. Not everyone agrees.

As I have said, the Framers fully expected intense pulling and hauling between the Congress and the President. Unfortunately, just in the past few years, we have seen these conflicts take on an entirely new character.

Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called “The Resistance,” and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver available to sabotage the functioning of his Administration. Now, “resistance” is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous – indeed incendiary – notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the “loyal opposition,” as opposing parties have done in the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.


A prime example of this is the Senate’s unprecedented abuse of the advice-and-consent process. The Senate is free to exercise that power to reject unqualified nominees, but that power was never intended to allow the Senate to systematically oppose and draw out the approval process for every appointee so as to prevent the President from building a functional government.

Yet that is precisely what the Senate minority has done from his very first days in office. As of September of this year, the Senate had been forced to invoke cloture on 236 Trump nominees — each of those representing its own massive consumption of legislative time meant only to delay an inevitable confirmation. How many times was cloture invoked on nominees during President Obama’s first term? 17 times. The Second President Bush’s first term? Four times. It is reasonable to wonder whether a future President will actually be able to form a functioning administration if his or her party does not hold the Senate.

Congress has in recent years also largely abdicated its core function of legislating on the most pressing issues facing the national government. They either decline to legislate on major questions or, if they do, punt the most difficult and critical issues by making broad delegations to a modern administrative state that they increasingly seek to insulate from Presidential control. This phenomenon first arose in the wake of the Great Depression, as Congress created a number of so-called “independent agencies” and housed them, at least nominally, in the Executive Branch. More recently, the Dodd-Frank Act’s creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Branch, a single-headed independent agency that functions like a junior varsity President for economic regulation, is just one of many examples.

Of course, Congress’s effective withdrawal from the business of legislating leaves it with a lot of time for other pursuits. And the pursuit of choice, particularly for the opposition party, has been to drown the Executive Branch with “oversight” demands for testimony and documents. I do not deny that Congress has some implied authority to conduct oversight as an incident to its Legislative Power. But the sheer volume of what we see today – the pursuit of scores of parallel “investigations” through an avalanche of subpoenas – is plainly designed to incapacitate the Executive Branch, and indeed is touted as such.

The costs of this constant harassment are real. For example, we all understand that confidential communications and a private, internal deliberative process are essential for all of our branches of government to properly function. Congress and the Judiciary know this well, as both have taken great pains to shield their own internal communications from public inspection. There is no FOIA for Congress or the Courts. Yet Congress has happily created a regime that allows the public to seek whatever documents it wants from the Executive Branch at the same time that individual congressional committees spend their days trying to publicize the Executive’s internal decisional process. That process cannot function properly if it is public, nor is it productive to have our government devoting enormous resources to squabbling about what becomes public and when, rather than doing the work of the people.

In recent years, we have seen substantial encroachment by Congress in the area of executive privilege. The Executive Branch and the Supreme Court have long recognized that the need for confidentiality in Executive Branch decision-making necessarily means that some communications must remain off limits to Congress and the public. There was a time when Congress respected this important principle as well. But today, Congress is increasingly quick to dismiss good-faith attempts to protect Executive Branch equities, labeling such efforts “obstruction of Congress” and holding Cabinet Secretaries in contempt.

One of the ironies of today is that those who oppose this President constantly accuse this Administration of “shredding” constitutional norms and waging a war on the rule of law. When I ask my friends on the other side, what exactly are you referring to? I get vacuous stares, followed by sputtering about the Travel Ban or some such thing. While the President has certainly thrown out the traditional Beltway playbook, he was upfront about that beforehand, and the people voted for him. What I am talking about today are fundamental constitutional precepts. The fact is that this Administration’s policy initiatives and proposed rules, including the Travel Ban, have transgressed neither constitutional, nor traditional, norms, and have been amply supported by the law and patiently litigated through the Court system to vindication.

Indeed, measures undertaken by this Administration seem a bit tame when compared to some of the unprecedented steps taken by the Obama Administration’s aggressive exercises of Executive power – such as, under its DACA program, refusing to enforce broad swathes of immigration law.


The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of “Resistance” against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law. This highlights a basic disadvantage that conservatives have always had in contesting the political issues of the day. It was adverted to by the old, curmudgeonly Federalist, Fisher Ames, in an essay during the early years of the Republic.

In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursing a deific end. They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications. They never ask whether the actions they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct, equally applicable to all sides.




Truer words have never been spoken.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-19th-annual-barbara-k-olson-memorial-lecture
 
I'm glad you think so. Not everyone agrees.

As I have said, the Framers fully expected intense pulling and hauling between the Congress and the President. Unfortunately, just in the past few years, we have seen these conflicts take on an entirely new character.

Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called “The Resistance,” and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver available to sabotage the functioning of his Administration. Now, “resistance” is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous – indeed incendiary – notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the “loyal opposition,” as opposing parties have done in the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.


A prime example of this is the Senate’s unprecedented abuse of the advice-and-consent process. The Senate is free to exercise that power to reject unqualified nominees, but that power was never intended to allow the Senate to systematically oppose and draw out the approval process for every appointee so as to prevent the President from building a functional government.

Yet that is precisely what the Senate minority has done from his very first days in office. As of September of this year, the Senate had been forced to invoke cloture on 236 Trump nominees — each of those representing its own massive consumption of legislative time meant only to delay an inevitable confirmation. How many times was cloture invoked on nominees during President Obama’s first term? 17 times. The Second President Bush’s first term? Four times. It is reasonable to wonder whether a future President will actually be able to form a functioning administration if his or her party does not hold the Senate.

Congress has in recent years also largely abdicated its core function of legislating on the most pressing issues facing the national government. They either decline to legislate on major questions or, if they do, punt the most difficult and critical issues by making broad delegations to a modern administrative state that they increasingly seek to insulate from Presidential control. This phenomenon first arose in the wake of the Great Depression, as Congress created a number of so-called “independent agencies” and housed them, at least nominally, in the Executive Branch. More recently, the Dodd-Frank Act’s creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Branch, a single-headed independent agency that functions like a junior varsity President for economic regulation, is just one of many examples.

Of course, Congress’s effective withdrawal from the business of legislating leaves it with a lot of time for other pursuits. And the pursuit of choice, particularly for the opposition party, has been to drown the Executive Branch with “oversight” demands for testimony and documents. I do not deny that Congress has some implied authority to conduct oversight as an incident to its Legislative Power. But the sheer volume of what we see today – the pursuit of scores of parallel “investigations” through an avalanche of subpoenas – is plainly designed to incapacitate the Executive Branch, and indeed is touted as such.

The costs of this constant harassment are real. For example, we all understand that confidential communications and a private, internal deliberative process are essential for all of our branches of government to properly function. Congress and the Judiciary know this well, as both have taken great pains to shield their own internal communications from public inspection. There is no FOIA for Congress or the Courts. Yet Congress has happily created a regime that allows the public to seek whatever documents it wants from the Executive Branch at the same time that individual congressional committees spend their days trying to publicize the Executive’s internal decisional process. That process cannot function properly if it is public, nor is it productive to have our government devoting enormous resources to squabbling about what becomes public and when, rather than doing the work of the people.

In recent years, we have seen substantial encroachment by Congress in the area of executive privilege. The Executive Branch and the Supreme Court have long recognized that the need for confidentiality in Executive Branch decision-making necessarily means that some communications must remain off limits to Congress and the public. There was a time when Congress respected this important principle as well. But today, Congress is increasingly quick to dismiss good-faith attempts to protect Executive Branch equities, labeling such efforts “obstruction of Congress” and holding Cabinet Secretaries in contempt.

One of the ironies of today is that those who oppose this President constantly accuse this Administration of “shredding” constitutional norms and waging a war on the rule of law. When I ask my friends on the other side, what exactly are you referring to? I get vacuous stares, followed by sputtering about the Travel Ban or some such thing. While the President has certainly thrown out the traditional Beltway playbook, he was upfront about that beforehand, and the people voted for him. What I am talking about today are fundamental constitutional precepts. The fact is that this Administration’s policy initiatives and proposed rules, including the Travel Ban, have transgressed neither constitutional, nor traditional, norms, and have been amply supported by the law and patiently litigated through the Court system to vindication.

Indeed, measures undertaken by this Administration seem a bit tame when compared to some of the unprecedented steps taken by the Obama Administration’s aggressive exercises of Executive power – such as, under its DACA program, refusing to enforce broad swathes of immigration law.


The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of “Resistance” against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law. This highlights a basic disadvantage that conservatives have always had in contesting the political issues of the day. It was adverted to by the old, curmudgeonly Federalist, Fisher Ames, in an essay during the early years of the Republic.

In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursing a deific end. They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications. They never ask whether the actions they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct, equally applicable to all sides.




Truer words have never been spoken.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-19th-annual-barbara-k-olson-memorial-lecture
Cut and paste equivocation. Keep blaming Obama.
 
Blame those that deserve blame. Obama is only one. Hillary, Brennan, permanent Government types, Deep Stater's and various pro-tyranny members of the House and Senate, Progressive jurists.. Lots of people.
Tin hat time..'deep state'...pro-tyranny...or many, most realizing this guy trump is an idiot.
He won't be convicted by the 'pro tyranny' senate GOP...BUT, with the recent results in many pro-trump states(Louisiana latest trump defeat)...the Nov 2020 election will send this moron back to Florida, his new home state..and hopefully he and his inbred, dummass family, will all be in orange jump suits.
 
Oct 28, 2019
71
25
230
Tin hat time..'deep state'...pro-tyranny...or many, most realizing this guy trump is an idiot.
He won't be convicted by the 'pro tyranny' senate GOP...BUT, with the recent results in many pro-trump states(Louisiana latest trump defeat)...the Nov 2020 election will send this moron back to Florida, his new home state..and hopefully he and his inbred, dummass family, will all be in orange jump suits.
Thank God for the deep state.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/11/13/donald-trump-deep-state-ukraine-cia-nsa-state-department-column/2521881001/
 
Reactions: FrankB

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS