Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 151 to 163 of 163

"Drain the Swamp" of US Government Corruption & Media Cover-ups Working Together

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Warrigal View Post
    I believe the poster that you are referring to is DragonLady, not dragonbreath.


    Once could be a mistake but twice?
    I believe that was sarcasm in charge.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    South of Manchester, UK
    Posts
    520

    Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.............

    Quote Originally Posted by BobF View Post

    BobF wrote:
    "I believe that was sarcasm in charge."

    I find it interesting you seem to wish to reply on behalf of another forum member perfectly well able to answer for themselves, and during a discussion on another thread, vice versa.


    Are you "joined at the hip" perhaps? (I think that qualifies as "irony", supposedly slightly above sarcasm in the "wit" stakes).

    If you dont mind my saying this, much as you dislike my contributions to this forum, you may have to ignore me because you appear to have your hands full trying to come up with anything vaguely adequate in response to a fair number of others with differing views to your own, (who I feel totally in tune with I'm glad to say ).

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by grahamg View Post
    I find it interesting you seem to wish to reply on behalf of another forum member perfectly well able to answer for themselves, and during a discussion on another thread, vice versa.


    Are you "joined at the hip" perhaps? (I think that qualifies as "irony", supposedly slightly above sarcasm in the "wit" stakes).

    If you dont mind my saying this, much as you dislike my contributions to this forum, you may have to ignore me because you appear to have your hands full trying to come up with anything vaguely adequate in response to a fair number of others with differing views to your own, (who I feel totally in tune with I'm glad to say ).
    To put it quite bluntly. It is none of your business how and why I respond to posts on these threads. You are not the worst around here but you sure like to think you are number one and need to tell others how to live or act or what ever. You are just one of hundreds that belong on this forum and nowhere near being one of the many respected posters.

    If you think your socialist system you live in is better than the US, maybe you should just keep at home and enjoy. I would like to see our Constitution be returned to the US ways of operating. Something that many of our Democrats don't like to hear at all. Socialism is just government controlled poverty for the masses.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    South of Manchester, UK
    Posts
    520

    Be as blunt as you like..........

    Quote Originally Posted by BobF View Post

    BobF wrote:
    "To put it quite bluntly. It is none of your business how and why I respond to posts on these threads. You are not the worst around here but you sure like to think you are number one and need to tell others how to live or act or what ever. You are just one of hundreds that belong on this forum and nowhere near being one of the many respected posters.

    If you think your socialist system you live in is better than the US, maybe you should just keep at home and enjoy. I would like to see our Constitution be returned to the US ways of operating. Something that many of our Democrats don't like to hear at all. Socialism is just government controlled poverty for the masses."

    Carry on being as blunt and hostile as you like, as I appreciate your appearing unsettled or uncomfortable with my posts .

    You keep repeating that you believe the UK is ruled under a socialist system, and yet seem unable to accept contrary evidence (as other "more respected" forum members have picked up on, your inability to accept conflicting evidence to whatever you wish to believe).

    Finally you mention the US constitution and desire to see your country return to it as a way of operating. However, that argument has been debunked by a US citizen replying to someone making a similar argument "elsewhere", and if you can just prise your mind open a little, you may learn why you might be mistaken in your thinking, quote:

    "That's political. I'm not a Hillary fan either but Donald is a lying sack of fertilizer almost every time he opens his mouth. And "originalists" are wrong because the Constitution was written back in the 18th century and the concerns at the time are different than now. The framers of the Constitution did have their own interests and they came to agreements over regional concerns that do not exist now. Originalism ignores the human condition, like when some of the framers tip toed around slavery, and it's not a very compassionate or caring doctrine (originalism), that's pretty much what it is in a nutshell without picking examples of where it might or might not work. SCOTUS interprets both law and the Constitution and originalists tend to take humanity out of the equation sort of like how Gorsuch views law."
    Last edited by grahamg; 05-06-2017 at 08:26 AM. Reason: spelling

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa.
    Posts
    400
    Just to clear things up for the other posters, ANTIFA is not Anti First Amendment. That is completely erroneous information and might even be classified as Fake News. The fact that they protested against a speaker from Berkley d.oes not make them anti first amendment; to claim that is ridiculous overkill. They are anti FACIST

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa.
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by Lara View Post
    No, tnthomas, I'm not combining foreign and domestic issues, I'm separating the focus if anything.

    As I said, ANTIFA is Anti Fascist in Europe but here in the USA the focus of ANTIFA is the First Amendment. When I first posted that, I had no idea that this is a hot topic of battle between democrats and republicans. I don't care what you call it but here in the US the focus is on Freedom of Speech. To say it's about Fascism in the U.S. here "is obviously an insult to the millions who have suffered under REAL fascism". Apparently the message board in this link (which I just found and am not a member of) is representative of this argument.

    This is not my quote but is in the link below..."Sanders and Warren are socialists and their foot soldiers are the morons in antifa who are now blocking free speech across this country......the only ones actually comitting violence are left wingers...everyone else wants to be left alone."

    Quotes are from this link which I am not a member of nor am I recommending it. It's just a representation of this ridiculous argument:

    http://www.usmessageboard.com/thread...ndment.590899/
    From a message board - now that's a reliable source of information! NOT!

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by grahamg View Post
    Carry on being as blunt and hostile as you like, as I appreciate your appearing unsettled or uncomfortable with my posts .

    You keep repeating that you believe the UK is ruled under a socialist system, and yet seem unable to accept contrary evidence (as other "more respected" forum members have picked up on, your inability to accept conflicting evidence to whatever you wish to believe).

    Finally you mention the US constitution and desire to see your country return to it as a way of operating. However, that argument has been debunked by a US citizen replying to someone making a similar argument "elsewhere", and if you can just prise your mind open a little, you may learn why you might be mistaken in your thinking, quote:

    "That's political. I'm not a Hillary fan either but Donald is a lying sack of fertilizer almost every time he opens his mouth. And "originalists" are wrong because the Constitution was written back in the 18th century and the concerns at the time are different than now. The framers of the Constitution did have their own interests and they came to agreements over regional concerns that do not exist now. Originalism ignores the human condition, like when some of the framers tip toed around slavery, and it's not a very compassionate or caring doctrine (originalism), that's pretty much what it is in a nutshell without picking examples of where it might or might not work. SCOTUS interprets both law and the Constitution and originalists tend to take humanity out of the equation sort of like how Gorsuch views law."
    I think I have posted this not long ago. Maybe you just did not read it. The Constitution is not 240 years old and obsolete at all.

    When ever things need changed the Constitution goes to the Congress and if the Congress agrees an amendment is written. That too must be approved by the Congress and a majority of the states before it becomes part of our Constitution. So in fact, the Constitution has held this nation together quite well for over 240 years and is considered whole and current in its rules and reasons.

    That does not happen often for most countries as each new ruler sets up his ideas of what is right of wrong. Not something based on religion, or dictator like demands, or politics, which is our today's concerns. Parties are not in our Constitution and should be banned from operating within the government. Parties emotions are always guided by some small idea that sounds good but does not involve the peoples wishes at all.

    Of the US we have about 33% Republicans, 36% Democrats, and the remaining 31% as independents or members of other parties. So none of them are actually be big enough to claim to run this country. So those party names need to be deleted as they win a enter the government to watch over events of their districts and that is what the Constitution says they should do.

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    South of Manchester, UK
    Posts
    520

    History of a free people

    Quote Originally Posted by BobF View Post

    Grahamg wrote:
    "Carry on being as blunt and hostile as you like, as I appreciate your appearing unsettled or uncomfortable with my posts .

    You keep repeating that you believe the UK is ruled under a socialist system, and yet seem unable to accept contrary evidence (as other "more respected" forum members have picked up on, your inability to accept conflicting evidence to whatever you wish to believe).

    Finally you mention the US constitution and desire to see your country return to it as a way of operating. However, that argument has been debunked by a US citizen replying to someone making a similar argument "elsewhere", and if you can just prise your mind open a little, you may learn why you might be mistaken in your thinking, quote:

    "That's political. I'm not a Hillary fan either but Donald is a lying sack of fertilizer almost every time he opens his mouth. And "originalists" are wrong because the Constitution was written back in the 18th century and the concerns at the time are different than now. The framers of the Constitution did have their own interests and they came to agreements over regional concerns that do not exist now. Originalism ignores the human condition, like when some of the framers tip toed around slavery, and it's not a very compassionate or caring doctrine (originalism), that's pretty much what it is in a nutshell without picking examples of where it might or might not work. SCOTUS interprets both law and the Constitution and originalists tend to take humanity out of the equation sort of like how Gorsuch views law.""

    BobF wrote:

    "I think I have posted (in response to) this not long ago. Maybe you just did not read it. The Constitution is not 240 years old and obsolete at all.

    When ever things need changed the Constitution goes to the Congress and if the Congress agrees an amendment is written. That too must be approved by the Congress and a majority of the states before it becomes part of our Constitution. So in fact, the Constitution has held this nation together quite well for over 240 years and is considered whole and current in its rules and reasons.

    That does not happen often for most countries as each new ruler sets up his ideas of what is right of wrong. Not something based on religion, or dictator like demands, or politics, which is our today's concerns. Parties are not in our Constitution and should be banned from operating within the government. Parties emotions are always guided by some small idea that sounds good but does not involve the peoples wishes at all.

    Of the US we have about 33% Republicans, 36% Democrats, and the remaining 31% as independents or members of other parties. So none of them are actually be big enough to claim to run this country. So those party names need to be deleted as they win a enter the government to watch over events of their districts and that is what the Constitution says they should do.

    I do admit I didn't remember any response to the above comments about "originalist" thinking, after I previously posted those comments taken from a US citizen posting "elsewhere", and I will have to leave it to other US citizens to comment, one way or the other, because fairly obviously my knowledge of the US constitution and its relevance today is limited. I did read your constitution in a book entitled "History of a free people" prior to my one and only trip to the US back in 1988, so that means it isn't too fresh in my mind.

    In the UK there is no written constitution (yet), although much of our legal system and the basis of the way the country is run goes back to Magna Carte I'm told, where rights to be tried by your peers became part of our law, and the state's power to imprison someone was constrained.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    South of Manchester, UK
    Posts
    520
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonlady View Post

    Dragonlady wrote:
    From a message board - now that's a reliable source of information! NOT!

    This worrying all the time about sources of information is a modern day phenomenon (understandably), and you and I might well agree as to who takes a lot of the blame for it, along with a journalist speaking on the BBC this morning saying this was a serious matter, and saying the White House was attacking the media in such a deliberate and planned way, carrying on from his behaviour before his (Trump's) election.

    Those who wish to defend Trump come what may will not like the following information and views at all, so we can expect arguments as to the "source", or contrary/alternative information and views, or else they might just ignore it all and pretend it isn't happening (what's your money on?):

    "Some think that the chance of Trump being impeached is as slim as winning Powerball and others think it's certain as the sun rising tomorrow ..."

    "President Trump has courted so much constitutional disaster in his first 100 days that an impeachment now seems like a safe bet, government ethics experts say.

    "He does not seem to show any interest in not violating the Constitution," said Jordan Libowitz, communications director at the ethics watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) in Washington, D.C.

    CREW has filed nearly 100 ethics complaints — including lawsuits, FOIA requests and demands for investigations — within the first 100 days of Trump's presidency.

    "The number of issues we've seen this early in this administration is unlike any other," Libowitz said...


    Russia-Gate

    To recap: The FBI admitted it is investigating alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. National security adviser Michael Flynn resigned after lying about a conversation with a Russian ambassador. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions withheld revealing his own conversation the same ambassador and resisted calls to step down. Even parts of the infamous dossier about Russia allegedly blackmailing Trump - something Trump waved off as "fake news" — have gained more credibility through new revelations.

    Even though all the pieces don't yet fit together, all signs point to a problem of Watergate proportions, the experts said.

    "Every signal (the administration) is giving is like they've got a serious problems that they don't want people to know about," said John Dean, a former White House Counsel to President Richard Nixon who helped expose Watergate.

    "If Trump could clean this up, if there was nothing there, he would do it," Dean said.

    "He'd be absolutely insane not to do that. But the reason Watergate was not disposed of was because there were indeed connections to the White House."

    Dean said the enigmatic expansion of Trump's possible Russian entanglement reminds him all too much of Watergate. He especially sees it in what he calls the "drip, drip, drip" — a slow trickle of leaks that gradually unravel a nebulous racket.

    "That drip, drip, drip is what keeps scandals alive," Dean said.

    "If a full Russia thing surfaces, it will be the end of his presidency."...

    Business conflicts have grown bigly

    Trump's most glaring problem before becoming President was his sordid business history — and his refusal to cut ties with it.

    He claimed right before his inauguration that he was divesting his Trump Organization empire, but instead he simply let his sons run the daily operations, while still remaining in charge and even changing his trust documents to let himself secretly dip into profits.

    That means Trump has not taken the necessary steps to avoid his most patently impeachable offense: Violating the emoluments clause, an anti-bribery provision in the Constitution.

    "The failure to divest, I think, almost fatally subjects him to conflicts of interest that are impeachable," Lichtman said.

    "When he got into office, it was a more nebulous worry," Libowitz, of CREW, said about Trump's conflicts of interest.

    By now, he said, it appears clear that Trump is treating his public service as "some kind of side gig."

    "He's never been in a position where the benefits have to be anywhere but his bottom line," Libowitz said.

    The emoluments clause specifically prohibits the President and other officials in the federal government from accepting gifts from foreign leaders and diplomats — something Trump seems to have made no effort to avoid.

    Within his first 100 days, China and Mexico rapidly granted dozens of trademarks for Trump and his daughter Ivanka. The approvals from China even came the same day that Ivanka dined with its president, Xi Jinping. His children have been allowed to sit in on several other meetings with foreign leaders.

    Meanwhile, Trump has inexplicably exempted countries where he has businesses, such as Saudi Arabia, from controversial foreign policy orders like his travel ban.

    This is all to say nothing of Trump's domestic business conflicts, like supporting the White House's illegal endorsement of his daughter's clothing line.

    "All kinds of conflicts seem to be triggered here and it's disturbing that there's not more widespread concerns about that in the government," said Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill law professor who testified at President Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings.

    An emoluments clause breach would require solid proof of Trump knowingly accepting a bribe.

    That has not emerged, but the opportunities for it have continued without end.

    There is one way, though, that a quid-pro-quo could be unearthed — and it could also bring an impeachment.

    There's something in those tax returns


    Trump waited until he got into office to declare for good that he will never release his tax returns — breaking years of promises to do so, and becoming the first President since Richard Nixon to keep them hidden.

    There is no mechanism in place now to force Trump to release them, and the IRS cannot legally confirm or deny if it is actually doing the indefinite "audit" Trump uses as his excuse...

    In lieu of a federal law about tax returns, legislators in more than half of the United States are pushing state laws that would require candidates to release their tax returns to appear on a ballot. That would mean Trump's reelection campaign (which he has already formally begun) could not even be put to a vote without his returns coming out.

    Trump's tax returns are a potential Rosetta stone of corruption, giving answers to long-running anxieties about his conflicts, foreign ties and sources of wealth.

    The ongoing outrage over his secrecy might make it unlikely the returns will remain hidden for the next four years.

    "He promised to release them and it's what we expect," Gerhardt said.

    Gerhardt argued that, at the very least, a Democrat-controlled Congress would not keep letting Trump get away with it.

    Trump was in power for less than two months before one of his old returns leaked for the second time in six months.

    When journalist David Cay Johnston appeared on "The Rachel Maddow Show" in March to discuss Trump's leaked 2005 returns, he said his journalism career taught him one thing about secrecy: "Every time some high-level politician wants to hide something, it always turns out there`s a reason."...

    More potential for perjury

    Trump's presidency began with about 60 lawsuits against him still open, leaving many opportunities for perjury, which is what led to President Bill Clinton's impeachment proceedings.

    Well, the lawsuits are still coming.

    The latest legal dramas including six lawsuits from CREW; a civil lawsuit from Gloria Allred, alleging that Trump defamed former "Apprentice" contestant Summer Zervos; and a suit accusing Trump of personally inciting violence at one of his campaign rallies.

    As the court papers pile on, the presidency has — surprise — had zero impact on curbing Trump's penchant for "alternative facts."

    If any of these lawsuits require Trump's testimony, a single lie under oath would be enough for Trump to follow Clinton's path to impeachment...."


    www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/100-da...et-article-1.3099439

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    11,771
    A lot to think about on a number of fronts.
    No wonder people everywhere find the 45th presidency endlessly fascinating.
    Reality TV has nothing on this unfolding drama.
    We must always take sides.
    Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Warrigal View Post
    A lot to think about on a number of fronts.
    No wonder people everywhere find the 45th presidency endlessly fascinating.
    Reality TV has nothing on this unfolding drama.
    And many are still waiting to see how much ends up as fantasy and how much is reality.

    Showing tax returns is not a requirement at all. I believe it all started during FDR's days. No way to call that a crime and cause punishment for not doing something that is voluntary.

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    11,771
    Can the police subpoena an individual's tax returns if they are relevant to a criminal inquiry?
    If not the police, could the FBI gain access?

    Edited. I've been researching and have found out that tax returns can be obtained by Congress. Here are some replies I found at https://www.quora.com/How-can-Congre...turns-from-IRS

    They donít need to subpoena them. US tax law allows the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, or the Joint Committee on Taxation to request the tax returns of any citizen from the Department of Treasury. If Congress ever gets to the point of seriously considering impeachment, they can access those records any time they wish. There is even precedent for releasing the information to the public - during the Watergate era, the Joint Committee on Taxation released some of Nixonís personal tax information in a public report.
    Congress can do anything they want. They can subpoena Trumpís returns, for some cause or another. Trump may or may not comply. The Supremes will decide whether what Congress wants is legal or not.Bottom line, the probability that they ever make the light of day: pretty remote.
    A congressional inquiry can do whatever it wants. But say you got hold of his returns. Then what? What will you do with that information?
    Let's say it shows he paid no taxes and had a big loss. Ok... then what? Or that it shows a huge amount of income and lots of taxes. Ok... so???
    It doesn't matter what's on his returns. What matters is what comes out of his mouth and what he actively pushes for or against. Those are the things people should be worried about.
    I agree that Congress is very unlikely to request such information. Most would be too scared of opening themselves up to close scrutiny.
    We must always take sides.
    Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    114
    We've never had a billionaire (supposedly) businessman as president. His tax returns would indicate his recent involvements and whether we have to be concerned about self aggrandizement. That alone, should compel their availability. The fact that some of those involvements may include the government of our worst enemy and their complicity in disrupting our elections should also enhance the process of disclosure.

    If Le Pen wins today, prepare for the dissolution of the EU and NATO...another event on Putin's wish list.

    I find it embarrassing that many foreigners have a clearer view of American politics than many of our own people.

    For a patriot to back Trump's evasive moves under these circumstances...is a contradiction...just like Trump
    .
    Can God build a rock too big for him/her/it to lift?

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Please reply to this thread with any new information or opinions.

Similar Threads

  1. Swamp Soccer
    By NancyNGA in forum Sports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-27-2016, 07:12 AM
  2. Australia has its swamp creatures too.
    By Pappy in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-24-2015, 04:12 PM
  3. Government Pays/Paid Social Media Trolls To Manipulate Opinion
    By WhatInThe in forum Current News and Hot Topics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-03-2015, 08:05 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-23-2014, 11:07 PM
  5. Abandoned Baby Found and Rescued Several Days Later in Sewer Drain
    By SeaBreeze in forum Current News and Hot Topics
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-24-2014, 06:13 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Family & Health Forums: Mom Forum - Health Forum - Low Carb Forum - Pet Forums