Comey to testify that Trump obstructed

[zoogs]

To sort of agree with ZRod here, I think Trump is more gullible than active colluder. He has shady characters around him because of the way he campaigned -- respectable people flee association with him. And the worst folks come out of the woodwork. Granted, he's openly embraced them so he's also quite complicit.

 

I think Trump genuinely believes he's making America great again.

[Ratt Mhule]

 

 

 

He kept making assumptions on what he thought Trump was thinking but "he could be wrong" (said that phrase numerous times)-- Kept using that phrase because he was being asked what he thought the President was thinking. I realize it wasn't a court hearing but either way, it's called hearsay and he didn't want to claim in public something that could impact a still ongoing investigation.

 

 

That's like a mob boss telling his hitman to "take care of him for me". He can say well, I didn't tell him to kill him, but anyone with a brain knows what he meant by this. Trump might not have said outright, "stop this investigation" but anyone not kissing his butt knows what his intentions were. It might not hold up in a court of law, but it should be worrisome for most people that a POTUS would act like this.

 

First, Comey (correctly) interpreted "I hope..." as a direction. Second, it has held up in the Court of law.

 

 

 

 

Even better. I think I remember you saying youre a lawyer, so youd definitely know more than me on the subject

[QMany]

Even better. I think I remember you saying youre a lawyer, so youd definitely know more than me on the subject

 

I hope I didn't come off as critical of your comments, I was just trying to give some insight on case law precedent.

 

I just don't want the disinformation campaign influencing others to believe Trump saying "I hope" gets him off the hook.

[QMany]

[zoogs]

Good for Bob Inglis. I imagine he and I don't see eye-to-eye on much, but he's absolutely right to hold Paul Ryan accountable to his face.

 

More importantly, he's willing to take this stand publicly.

[Danny Bateman]

For those who didn't click on Tapper's tweet:

 

 

This reply made me chuckle. Then it made me cringe. This guy used to run Medicare/Medicaid for Obama and has been very active in fighting against Trumpcare.

 

[Danny Bateman]

Lots of us were wanting this...

Now, take it with a grain of salt, because he's completely full of @#*$. But man, if this goes through... this isn't going to end well.

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

 

I'm a pretty big fan of ranked-choice voting. It would prevent someone like Trump from winning with a plurality and would require an eventual majority.

 

Is that the same thing deedsker was describing with a single-transferable vote system?

 

Single best non political argument for a team about voting systems. First past the post promotes a two party system where a third party only ruins one ruling party to give the other power by default. The third party is absorbed by one or the other and the traditional in or out resumes. Single transferable vote takes away the you must vote against your views to decide two party debate and force third party votes who don't like either to show value to anybody else than the two vying for power. Eventually everyone votes how they truly feel and you also eliminate most gerrymandering by running multiple people to multiple positions.

 

 

Great Video! I like this as an answer to the rising polarity in politics we have seen over the past 20 or so years. It would help with partisan politics, gerrymandering, and would allow 3rd and 4rth parties to have a seat at the table. I could even see this lowering corruption and the power of special interests. Good stuff. I think something like this would have to work its way up from the local level gradually (kind of like the legalization of marijuana).

 

I recently talked with my Aunt, who has lived in Wyoming for 40 or 50 years. She was very liberal coming out of college, but grew disillusioned with politics due to very few options in elections that matched her views. Eventually she became very conservative. That may have happened anyway, but with a voting system like single-transferable, a minority party might have survived there. Diversity is good.

 

This is a tangent to the thread, but a good topic. Maybe you could start a new one?

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

I'm a pretty big fan of ranked-choice voting. It would prevent someone like Trump from winning with a plurality and would require an eventual majority.

 

Is that the same thing deedsker was describing with a single-transferable vote system?

 

Single best non political argument for a team about voting systems. First past the post promotes a two party system where a third party only ruins one ruling party to give the other power by default. The third party is absorbed by one or the other and the traditional in or out resumes. Single transferable vote takes away the you must vote against your views to decide two party debate and force third party votes who don't like either to show value to anybody else than the two vying for power. Eventually everyone votes how they truly feel and you also eliminate most gerrymandering by running multiple people to multiple positions.

 

 

Great Video! I like this as an answer to the rising polarity in politics we have seen over the past 20 or so years. It would help with partisan politics, gerrymandering, and would allow 3rd and 4rth parties to have a seat at the table. I could even see this lowering corruption and the power of special interests. Good stuff. I think something like this would have to work its way up from the local level gradually (kind of like the legalization of marijuana).

 

I recently talked with my Aunt, who has lived in Wyoming for 40 or 50 years. She was very liberal coming out of college, but grew disillusioned with politics due to very few options in elections that matched her views. Eventually she became very conservative. That may have happened anyway, but with a voting system like single-transferable, a minority party might have survived there. Diversity is good.

 

This is a tangent to the thread, but a good topic. Maybe you could start a new one?

 

 

I agree with what you've put here.

 

I started a thread about the UK's elections earlier today. I find the situation over there incredibly interesting. Their PM has generally done a poor job governing, ran a poor campaign & now they've lost their majority. The next closest party doesn't have enough seats to challenge them, but because there are more than two major parties with substantial seats in their Parliament, they had less room for error.

 

A system like that would force more accountability on our pols instead of making sure they just get a simple majority and then changing the rules. It would also do away with the duopoly that allows Rs/Ds to get lazy and not look at their platforms with true introspection.

[Rusty Shackleford]

[commando]

1 thing i learned is that comey can call the president a liar and not 1 of the republican senators disagreed with him

[Enhance]

"The Russia story" is not dead, but the cart does seem to be pulling away from Trump.

[Danny Bateman]

 

Can you explain how these ten things are true?

 

I bet you can't.

[BigRedBuster]

Oh...I really want to see him under oath.

 

 

 

[knapplc]

Senator from New Mexico: