Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Skroe]

That's an awesome idea. But I don't think the Democrats have the balls to do it.

If they don't, there is legitimately no point to even being a Democracy anymore, which makes the entire issue moot.

I've never understood "democratic (small d) passivity".

A free country SHOULD be the most powerful country on Earth. And it shouldn't be close. Autocracies should live in mortal fear of what we'll do to them if they offend us.
A free people SHOULD be the most exuberant and aggressive about their ideology. Democratic promotion is something to be PROUD of.
A free people SHOULD be extremely difficult to "control" at home, politicians should live in terror of their beliefs, so to speak.

It all comes down to a central belief of mine: A free people should be the most powerful, uncontrolled expression of the human political condition, and nearly impossible to contain.

If free people won't fight for their freedom, and if we elect people who won't fight for it, then what's the goddamn point of all of this? Really? Why bother? Let's just in that case, chose to become Roman Empire 2.0, crown Trump Caesar and make every moron who ever called America an "empire" before as a political slam realize how mistaken they were when they see the real thing.

If Democrats don't have the balls to resort to extreme measures to protect the constitution, and their voters tolerate that in the name of some Nancy Pelosi political stratagem, then they'll have gored American democracy every bit as grievous as Trump's corruption and lawlessness has.

[Mormolyce]

Again, mueller doesn't care as much about midterms as we do. He cares that the president committed crimes to get elected, and is selling out america. That's a time sensitive issue, as the president continues to harm the nation for personal gain.

Ultimately, investigations and legal cases proceed at their usual snail's pace.

[Locked down]

If they don't, there is legitimately no point to even being a Democracy anymore, which makes the entire issue moot.

I've never understood "democratic (small d) passivity".

A free country SHOULD be the most powerful country on Earth. And it shouldn't be close. Autocracies should live in mortal fear of what we'll do to them if they offend us.
A free people SHOULD be the most exuberant and aggressive about their ideology. Democratic promotion is something to be PROUD of.
A free people SHOULD be extremely difficult to "control" at home, politicians should live in terror of their beliefs, so to speak.

It all comes down to a central belief of mine: A free people should be the most powerful, uncontrolled expression of the human political condition, and nearly impossible to contain.

If free people won't fight for their freedom, and if we elect people who won't fight for it, then what's the goddamn point of all of this? Really? Why bother? Let's just in that case, chose to become Roman Empire 2.0, crown Trump Caesar and make every moron who ever called America an "empire" before as a political slam realize how mistaken they were when they see the real thing.

If Democrats don't have the balls to resort to extreme measures to protect the constitution, and their voters tolerate that in the name of some Nancy Pelosi political stratagem, then they'll have gored American democracy every bit as grievous as Trump's corruption and lawlessness has.

I noticed this topic on the front page angle got dragged in so I might not have all the information so forgive me if I miss step but let me ask you a question.

What if you are the one in the wrong?

Everything you listed kind of sounds like what the average Trump voter said when they elected him president and for better or worse he has kept his promises for the most part. More so then any president in recent history. Democracy was held and the most popular ideas won.

We shouldn't consider the dismantling of democracy simply because your personal ideals are not held by the majority.

[Wyrt]

Democracy was held and the most popular ideas won.

Um, no, no it wasn't.

[Locked down]

Um, no, no it wasn't.

Yes,yes it was... one person one vote and the same rules everyone followed...

[Wyrt]

Yes,yes it was... one person one vote and the same rules everyone followed...

That's how it should be, yes. That is not how it is.

[Locked down]

That's how it should be, yes. That is not how it is.

Explain yourself then. What makes this case unique?

[Wyrt]

Explain yourself then. What makes this case unique?

The person who got the most votes is not Trump.

[Locked down]

The person who got the most votes is not Trump.

We use the electoral college... everyone plays by the same rules. You can't complain about the rules you agreed to after the fact.

[Wyrt]

We use the electoral college... everyone plays by the same rules. You can't complain about the rules you agreed to after the fact.

And you can't claim the majority supports Trump's ideas when they don't.

[Locked down]

And you can't claim the majority supports Trump's ideas when they don't.

I'm not arguing that... I am saying he won the presidency running on his ideas.

[Wyrt]

I'm not arguing that... I am saying he won the presidency running on his ideas.

Democracy was held and the most popular ideas won.

Sure looks like that was what you were arguing.

[Locked down]

Sure looks like that was what you were arguing.

I was arguing that its disengenuis to promote over throwing a democratically elected leader simply because you don't like him.

[Elegiac]

I was arguing that its disengenuis to promote over throwing a democratically elected leader simply because you don't like him.

The electoral college is not a democratic institution, ergo he was not democratically elected since he was selected solely by the electoral college without a popular mandate. Nor is his removal necessary because "we don't like him" - it's because he's a criminal and a cancerous presence in American society.

And no, the only 'promises' Trump has kept were goals that the GOP in Congress would have forwarded anyway.

[Locked down]

The electoral college is not a democratic institution, ergo he was not democratically elected since he was selected solely by the electoral college without a popular mandate. Nor is his removal necessary because "we don't like him" - it's because he's a criminal and a cancerous presence in American society.

And no, the only 'promises' Trump has kept were goals that the GOP in Congress would have forwarded anyway.

Well no.

We as a democracy decided to use the electoral college. As for the criminal part... forgive me if I am not holding my breath at this point.

[Cerilis]

Is this the obama-avatar-guy's attempt at an alt account?

[PosPosPos]

I was arguing that its disengenuis to promote over throwing a democratically elected leader simply because you don't like him.

It's surprising how people can't seem to grasp a simple fact: that democracy doesn't mean the minority group wins, as in the case with the electoral college.

- - - Updated - - -

Well no.

We as a democracy decided to use the electoral college. As for the criminal part... forgive me if I am not holding my breath at this point.

So basically, a previously democratic nation chose to use an undemocratic method to decide who leads the nation.

It's sad you don't understand such a simple fact.

[Glnger]

Hrm was this perhaps why Nunes is so transparently corrupt? Yes the story is unverified currently.

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/busine...210912434.html

[Elegiac]

Well no.

We as a democracy decided to use the electoral college.

You mean the rich old white slaveowners who thought black people weren't people decided to use it.

As for the criminal part... forgive me if I am not holding my breath at this point.

Violation of HIPAA is a felony. Trump's little "send a thug around to rifle through the files in his doctor's office" episode constitutes a HIPAA violation of a heinous degree.

[Ripster42]

Ultimately, investigations and legal cases proceed at their usual snail's pace.

Again, when the person you're investigating is the president, and the crimes you're investigating him for are effectively "selling out america," there's time pressure. This really, really shouldn't be that hard to grasp. There's no deadline or anything like that, but there's definitely motivation to finish this as quickly as possible, even if that means plea deals that are very favorable to the accused. There is motivation in this case as there has only been in 2 previous cases. Nixon and Reagan. Watergate and Iran-Contra. Once Iran-Contra figured to not zero in on Reagan, the investigation lost a lot of steam (and indeed, plodded on through Bush1's presidency), but that's not remotely the case here.