• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The 2018 Trump Presidency thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is very depressing that we went from this to this (i.e., from somebody compassionate that understands the problem of the War on Drugs, to somebody who admires someone that orders the executions of drug users and dealers).
 
Anyone that supports summary executions, even tangentially by supporting a politician that promotes the idea that they should occur more, clearly doesn't care about the law. Summary executions are nothing more than vigilantes committing murder; the law actually requires stuff like evidence before anyone can be convicted. All suspects are innocent until proven guilty, you can't say "but the law!" while simultaneously choosing to ignore parts that you don't like.
 
tathra said:
Anyone that supports summary executions, even tangentially by supporting a politician that promotes the idea that they should occur more, clearly doesn't care about the law. Summary executions are nothing more than vigilantes committing murder; the law actually requires stuff like evidence before anyone can be convicted. All suspects are innocent until proven guilty, you can't say "but the law!" while simultaneously choosing to ignore parts that you don't like.
Click to expand...

Yeah, unfortunately we have a president who isn't able to appreciate such nuanced concepts as "murder is bad."
 
tathra said:
Anyone that supports summary executions, even tangentially by supporting a politician that promotes the idea that they should occur more, clearly doesn't care about the law. Summary executions are nothing more than vigilantes committing murder; the law actually requires stuff like evidence before anyone can be convicted. All suspects are innocent until proven guilty, you can't say "but the law!" while simultaneously choosing to ignore parts that you don't like.
Click to expand...

Great point. Very true.
 
Might go better in the Mueller investigation thread, but the whole idea of an fbi conspiracy to take down the president, promoted by the party of "law and order" and blind faith in police, is a giant nothingburger. I wonder what all that cognitive dissonance tastes like.

Paul Ryan Ties Himself in Knots Defending the Nunes Memo
In an extraordinary and deeply worrisome series of events, the House Intelligence Committee has voted by party line to release the so-called Nunes memo, a report that alleges political bias and misconduct by the Federal Bureau of Investigation into its probe of Donald Trump and his campaign’s contacts with Russian officials. Though only four pages in length, the memo is said by California Rep. Devin Nunes to reveal some sort of vast conspiracy to undermine the president. Today, House Speaker Paul Ryan hemmed and hawed about the political pressure being exerted against the FBI and by extension special counsel Robert Mueller.

Then, Ryan backed Nunes.

Though this may seem like just another partisan fight, it marks a serious escalation for House Republicans in their defense of the president. The Nunes memo represents “one of the most audacious efforts yet by Republicans seeking to discredit the FBI,” writes The Boston Globe’s Matt Viser, as well as “a striking turn for a party that has long had as part of its DNA a trust in law enforcement and the national security apparatus to now be promoting theories worthy of a spy novel.”

“The ‘party of law and order,'” Viser writes, “is becoming the party of “I’m just raising questions.'”

Democrats on the committee, led by California Rep. Adam Schiff, have been quick to denounce Nunes. They say the claims in the memo are at once broad and thin–“a profoundly misleading set of talking points attacking the FBI and its handling of the investigation,” in Schiff’s words. Moreover, they say the memo contains some classified information that should not be made public so cavalierly. They also object to the fact that Republicans blocked the release of their rebuttal memo.

In his press conference today, Speaker Ryan, as he has so many times before, made an effort to appear more reasonable than the most zealous members of his caucus while nevertheless endorsing a position that, in days gone by, would have been located on the far-fringe of American politics.

“I think because of all the loose political rhetoric floating around here, we need to make sure we explain that there is a separation” between the Nunes memo’s sweeping allegations and criticisms of special counsel Robert Mueller, Ryan said.

But if you thought that Ryan’s desire to protect Mueller’s investigation from political pressure meant he would tell Nunes to temper his reckless attacks on the FBI, you would be sadly mistaken.

“I think we should disclose all this stuff,” Ryan went on to say. “I think sources and methods we’ve gotta protect, no two ways about it for sure, 100%. But I think disclosure is the way to go. It’s the best disinfectant. And I think we need to disclose, that brings us accountability, that brings us transparency, that helps us clean up any problem we have with (the Justice Department) and FBI.”
Ryan’s desire to “disinfect” the FBI comes, of course, one day after FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe resigned, saying he was effectively forced out of his job by the president. It also comes amid reports that Trump decided to fire Mueller last June, only to be talked out of the move by the White House counsel.
Click to expand...
 
tathra said:
Anyone that supports summary executions, even tangentially by supporting a politician that promotes the idea that they should occur more, clearly doesn't care about the law. Summary executions are nothing more than vigilantes committing murder; the law actually requires stuff like evidence before anyone can be convicted. All suspects are innocent until proven guilty, you can't say "but the law!" while simultaneously choosing to ignore parts that you don't like.
Click to expand...

Indeed. That a US president would praise Duterte is a disgrace. How can you swear to defend the constitution while praising behavior that is the antithesis of what the constitution is about?

The answer is you can't.
 
Trump crushed it last night.

As far as the fact checker. I see mostly Trues in there.

It's a full time job with any politician and the fact checker has been around for some time...
 
Jah he's just gonna start spouting divisive shit again tomorrow on twitter, it's hard to care when he says anything constructive anymore.
 
Trump just says whatever he wants to be true. I dunno why people still go on about it. It's just business as usual now.
 
JessFR said:
Trump just says whatever he wants to be true. I dunno why people still go on about it. It's just business as usual now.
Click to expand...

because its not normal and we shouldnt accept it as normal. this is not how a democratic government should function, nor how a public employee should act.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top